G.Satyanarayana v. District
Case at a glance
- Bench
- GHULAM MOHAMMED, VILAS V AFZULPURKAR
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27020 of 2007
ORDER:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notice dated
18.10.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and possession notice dated 05.12.2007 under Section 13(4) for taking possession of the charged property as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the first respondent-bank towards working capital and deposited title deeds of the properties owned by him. He failed to repay the loan amount. Therefore, the first respondent-bank filed a suit in O.S.No.199 of 2003 the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram. The suit was decreed on 27.07.2007 granting three months time to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,17,118/- @ 6% from the date of suit till realization. The petitioner states that even before the expiry of the three months period to deposit Rs.8,17,118/- at 6% interest, the first respondent-bank issued notice dated 18.10.2007 under Section 13(2) to pay an amount of Rs.16,66,793/- and possession notice dated 05.12.2007 for taking possession of the property in question.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent-bank is bound by the decree and has to initiate proceedings only after expiry of the three months period stipulated in the decree and cannot resort to take action under the provisions of the Act. Counter affidavit is filed stating that the first respondent- bank has got power to proceed against the borrower in case of failure to repay the secured debt and as per the decree, the amount was calculated from the date of suit i.e. from 03.02.2002 to 18.10.2007 i.e. till the date of issuance of notice, which comes to Rs.16,66,793/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the decree passed by the Civil Court has attained finality, the first respondent-bank is bound to effect recovery only to the extent the decree had attained finality and they cannot recover the amount according to their whims and fancies. Learned counsel for the first respondent-bank contended that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Transcore vs.
Operative part
Union of India[1], the bank is at liberty to invoke the provisions of the Act if the amount as directed by the bank under Section 13(2) of the Act is not paid. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.12.2007, the petitioner had deposited Rs.1,00,000/-. Subsequently, petitioner had deposited a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent-bank within two weeks from today and on such a representation being made, first respondent-bank shall consider and pass orders and communicate its decision to the petitioner. The petitioner shall pay the outstanding amount within three months thereafter. However, the amount deposited shall be given credit to. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt:23-06-2009 Note: Furnish copy within one week [1] 2006(12) scale 585
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 21, 226; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.