The High Court · 2025

N/r/a K l.(risht.z Reddv contractors, is a partnership firm ttar ing its office at ,l{li il, )ii7ii';r+.-eid rloor, M Cube Mall, Pillar No 1 ' 8 r\tt' pur Rinq Road' E|'.ii.r, -r.1,,..' Ranoa Reddv District -500048. rep. by its lVi naging Partner, ii3"r.lurrr,ior-rr; Reddy,-S/o Krishna Reddy, aged about 41 y'<'ar; The state ol '1:langana, Finance Department, rep by lts F'rir cipal Secretary, Telangarra :1 .,c'etariat, Hyderabad' ..FIESPONDENTS Petition under section 'l 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed In support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file additional material papers in w.p. No 107s3 of 2023 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.R.VARMA, REp. FOR SRt C.S.N.RAJU Counsel forthe Respondent No.1:AGp FOR FINANCE PLANNING Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 to 5: SRI R.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SC FOR APSFC The Court made the following: ORDER HOTI'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRITP I 1 53 F

2.3 ORDER Heard liri D'R'Varma' learned cgun6el representing SriC.S.N.Rirju,learnedcounselappearingonbehalfofthe petitioner on record' learned Assistant Govrarnment Pleader for f:inance & Planning appearing on behalf of the R. Rajendra Prasad, learned respondenl No.1 and Sri standing c,f,rrnsel aPPearing on behalf of the resPondent Nos. 2 to 5' 2 T e iti n r t rts kin as underj i,,r.-u;iled by the petitioner firm .vi'le (Tci is;U€ a writ order or Direction more parti':tlla -ly one in on of the il; ;,il;.""i writ or Mandamus declaring the 'rct ;l:' n=,,po"O"nt by not releasing the original dlcuments o.,roiii,,-.i vide registered Memorandum of Depros;it of Title ;:ff;,;;,-i;;ooi.trros.ozzs or 2012, dt 14-0e-2012 and riii i,i iiii:, dated t2-07-2073 in-spite or p'avins the loan account ".ir. dt' .r-O"l'-' Z+-gOAZOf pursuant .lL i-:,r,zo oz-og-zozt, 06-04-2022 and 15 'o\t-2022 as 'r?oi,#y and in violation of artir:lt: 300-4 of ir.". ,' :;:.'; i ti;;';id'directins the 2-nd.respondent tc execute re- .;;;;;,;.;; deed in respect of the above l'lentorandum of 1"".^=1,-;;-oeed bearing Doc'Nos' 6278 rtf 2012, dl' 14' Snii,iiz uni-so:: or 20L3, dt' 12-07-201:i in favour of ,r.r,, ,-iIi*"i in the office of SRo' Rajendranatlar and pass ;;;rI;ii,;l. ;.der or orders as this Hon'ble cotrrt cieems fit ..J ri,.,n., in the circumstances of the case" " - -to- the - -t'lol:ices \-.t 7 I 4 3 T a h a averments ma de bv theoeti ioner in theaffida vit fil ed the eti roner tn t ft he su DOrt rit DEtiti on, ts rese t s under: It is the specific case of the petitioner that a term loan had been sanctioned vide sanction No. 006064 and Lmo.AFC/PROJ_ I/T-7/749082/2012_13, dated 06-07_ 2072 to a tune of 800 lakhs for construction of 4_screen multiplex ancl shopping mall at Sy.No. 495lE/EE, 436/E/EE s}s/E/EE, so6/E/EE and 51S/E/EE Attapur inner ring road, Rajendranagar Mandal. RR District under general loan scheme on development basis with 500/o share in the project subject to some terms and conditions to repay the same in 33 quarterly instalments, payable on every 1.r March, 1,r June, 1tt September and 1.t December with annual rate of interest at 77o/o per annum. It is the Further the case of the petitioner that because of the financial crisis in the year 2016, the petitioner vide retter dated 20.05.2016, requested the corporation for wavier of outstanding monthly interest payable with a proposal to prepay the loan amount by raising funds from the sale of property in the mall as per the clause No.19 of sanction terms and requested to give NOC for the proposed sale of properties i.e., shop No 110, 302, t 1, 402 to third 1ra1.ies. The petitioner vide letter dated 03- )6-2016 addressed tc ire Branch Manager APSFC, RR Di:;trict East Branch, Crirrrg-Alr-Lane, Hyderabad intimated the p3yment of Rs.5 crores trtv,'arCs the loan repayment and to acllncrvlt'rdge the payment nra le to the bank account bearirg No- 30291010r10()480 vide cheque No 318992 dated 0B-'16-2016 drawn on Sv rrji:ate Bank, Attapur Branch for an rlmouttt of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Only) towards lo.rn account No. 74908202 and further requested to issue the -e:e:ip: for the payment rnarle ;rlong with revised EMI schedule anC btllance loan amount pavabr3 after payment of Rs5.00 cr. The petrtrorrer again vide letter deted 01-11-2016, addressed to the Branclr l'lanager, APSFC,RR D ist'ict East Branch, Chirag-Ali-Lane, H1'derabad intimated th: lact of payment of Rs B1 Lakhs to'arards part repayment of i)an amount and requested for reduc:tiorl cf Rate of Interest by at-least 1.50% and release of collateral security original docJrnents since the petitioner had repairl about Rs 6.00 croros out of Rs 7.95 crores of total loan amotlnl . It is; fu -tirer the case of the petitioner that v de petitioner's letter datr:d 2 i 04.ZOLB, the petitioner intimated to th:l Branch Manager rlf 1:h,-' respondent corporation about the repa '/ment of Rs.108 la khsr l owards the loan amount by way of Cht,:que No. 6 247670, dated 21-04-2018, drawn on Syndicate bank, Attapur Branch and requested to issue the receipt towards the same and further requested for reduction of interest to llo/o and to release two collateral security original documents, along with revised EMI schedule, since Petitioner had repaid about Rs 7.5 crores out of Rs. 7.95 crores of total loan amount. It is further the case of the petitioner that by the petitioner's letter dated L6-OZ-20|9, petitioner had intimated the Branch Manager of the corporation that the repayment of Rs.25 lakhs towards the loan account was macle aFter selling one of the properties in the ground floor of the mall and paid the same towards the loan account. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 1B-06_2020, petitioner had received a mail from the corporation to pay an amount of Rs.3,03,484l- towards the closure of the loan account and in response there to petitioner had paid full and final loan amount of Rs. 3,03,484/- vide cheque no. 160859 dated 08-07- 2020 drawn on syndicate bank, Attapur Branch and requested to provide the receipt along with "Loan Closure Certificate., and further requested to arrange an authorised person of TSFC for release of documents mortgaged at SRO, Rajendranagar. Surprisingly on 13-07-2020 the corporation through its official 7 email addressecl to the petitioner acknowledged the -ec:eipt of the said !oart r:losure amount of Rs.3,03,484l" and again demanded to nrake payment of an additional anlount of Rs. 1500/- towards celayed period of interest till payme nt of t'ull and final closure c" loan and the same was also r€|pilil by the petitioner an ),1 07 .2020. It is furth,:rl' the case of the petitioner that aft,:r paf ing the entire due am rL nt in respect of the loan account as we I ers delay charges as d:rranded by the corporation, to the peti:ioner's shock and surp'ise the petitioner had received the lette- dated 06-11-202(l as.:ing the petitioner to pay premature premium charges amoufrting to Rs.5,12,589/- and excess interest concession of R;27,627l- totalling to Rs.5,40,2161- a<)a nst the petitioner's lolr account. To the said letter the p,3t tioner vide letter dated 16,-11-2020 submitted petitioner's e>lplanation explaining the reasons as to why the petitioner was n lt able to pay the prem,rtJre premium charges and also further explained that after gotti,-rg approval from the corporaticr only the petitioner l-ad s,:ld the properties, which are mortgagerl tr it and whatever sale proceeds were received the same wr:rr: derposited in the petitione-'; loan account as per the sanction,ed terns and i at any point of r:ime the petitioner was not informerJ w th regard 8 to payment oF premature premium charges as demanded by the respondent corporation and the same is illegal and arbitrary. Finally, the petitioner had requested the corporation to release the documents under mortgage. It is further the case of the petitioner that in spite of the request made for the release of documents, the corporation mechanically and in a routine manner by its letter dated

06.04.2022, informed the petitioner that the request for waiver of the premature premium charges amounting to Rs.5,12,589 and excess interest concession of Rs.27,627l- totalling to Rs.5,4O,276/- against the petitioner loan account, cannot be accepted and petitioner was advised to pay the said amounts im m ed iately. It is the further the case of the petitioner that the said communication dated 06-04-2022 from the corporation is itself in violation of the terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 06-07-2072, more particularly clause 19 of the same, and in view of repayment of the entire loan amount by the petitioner as confirmed officially through their emails dated 18-06-2020 about full loan closure amount and subsequent email dated L3.07.2020 acknowledging the receipt of the loan closure amount of Rs.3,03,484/- but however the respondent 1r" 9 corporatiorr ag;:rin demanded the petitioner to marke at ditlonal payment of 1s:.1500/- towards delayed period cf irrte'rest till payment of fLtlr ,:nd final closure of loan and the samo lYas also repaid by tirc petitioner on 14-07-2020, but hr:lvevei' the respondenr: (.o[poration failed to release the dor:uments from mortgage an i r:xecute the reconveyance deed in petitioner's favour as Der- thr: terms of the sanction letter dated 06 0;.2072. It is thr: 'urther the case of the petitioner that vi(le letter dated 05-09- 2C.12 petitioner requested the corpora:icn tcr release entire mortgegr:i Droperties which are in the corporati'ln custody by execut ngt r(l conveyance deed in petitioner's favr:Lrr within a period of sevt:n(7) days from the date of receipt of the said letter with interest G'1.7o/o on the mortgaged properties valLte of more than Rs. 1(r (:rores from the date of final pay"nt,rnt i.e., 14.07 .2020 , tl,e 2nd respondent corporatlon horn'erre r had not acted upon tre said representation, aggrieved by the s,ame the petitioner prefcrred the present writ petition.

4. PERUS ED THE R ECORD: A) Sancti,f,n letter vide AFCI?ROJ-I/T-Tl 749082 oLl20L2-L3,_.dated 06.07.2012 bv APSFC to t[e-pgtitioner J' I I 10 e n hereunder: e19 c "19. The firm shall not alienate or sell any part of the share of the-premises falling to their share. Ho*iu". as and when if any part of the space/area is-proposed for sale, the firm shall obtain NOC from the corporation ,pon payment of the sale consideration to the corporation fo.r aOlustment of the loan account. The firm shall submit an undertaking to this effect.,, B) Em .o7 o2 r th 2nd n t t her nw tc e h u "Sir, We received the amount of Rs.3,03,484l_ on 10.07.2020. The closure amount which we have ,Ifo11rgg to you is upto 30.06.2020 only. From 01.07.2020 to till date the interest amount have Oeen generated which is falling due is upto Rs.1500/_ in your account, we request you to kindly make the payment for closure of your loan account. Thanking you sir" c) Em ail, dated L8.O7.2 o 2O fro m the 2nd resDo ndent to e a h eun r "Sir, Good Morning Regarding closure of your loan account as mentioned in earlier mail P.p.charges are applicable, Your loan repayment schedule is upto 01.11.2022, due to pre closure of the loan account premature premium charges including GST have been charged as per terms and conditions. 11 VoLr 3re requested to pay the prem"rtur': premium ,::har!les including GST of Rs.685000/- tovrarc s '7our loan r::los Lt t't:, "-haniling you sir" N AND CONCL USION:- DISCUSS 5. The lr:;rrned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner lnainly contends that the communicaticln dated

06.04.2A22 from the corporation informing the petitioner that the request of the petitioner for waiver of the premature charges is not accepted is in violation of the terms anc' conditions of the sanction letter dated

06.O7.2AL2 ,and more particularly ctause 19 of tlhe same (referred to and extracted above), and in-spitcl of the petitioner repaying the entire loan amount as confirmed officially thrrough the corporation email dated 18.06.202O about full loan closure amount and subsequent email dated 13-07..2020 acknowledging the receipt of the loan closure amount of Rs. 3,O3,484/- and the 2'!d respondent corporatiorr again demanded the petitioner to make payment o'i an additional amount of Rs. 1500/- towards delayed period of interest towards the payment of full and final closure of loan and though the same was repaid by the petitionerr on 14-O7-2020, the respondent corporation l i i I I I t2 however failed to discharge its bounden duty to release the document from mortgage and execute the re_ conveyance deed in petitioner,s favour as per the terms of the sanction letter. Aggrieved by the same petitioner fited the present writ petition

6. A bare perusal of the email of the 2nd respondent corporation dated 1g-O7-202O is in contradiction of their own email dated L3-O7_2O2O (referred to extracted above)

7. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent corporation and a specific stand is taken contending that clause 19 of the sanction letter does not apply to the collateral properties and that repayment charges if any wourd be onry carcurated onry after crosure of the roan and that while processing the crosure of the roan account of the petitioner, the auditors of the respondent corporation had identified that the toan of the petationer attracts 3olo premium in view of the advance payment of instatments and therefore it was brought to the notice of the petitioner with regard to the premature premium charges applicable to the loan account of the petitioner which amounts to Rs. 6,85,000,/- and at the request of the 1J petitioner, l)art of the premature amount was wai'ved and the petitiorrer was advised to pay the amount of Rs' 5,4O,2t6/- and placing reliance on the averments made in the count(:r affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent corporation, the learned Standing Counsel sought for dismissal o1'the present writ petition.

8. GsElIliq[ No 41 to be complied with beforflniliE] disbursement- as oer the special terms and e9!dj.ti9n9-lg the sanctioL.accorded to the petitioner bv thelggpondent corporation is extracted hereu nd er: - nt of instalment of orincioa "41.3i9lo Premium sha! I be charqe d for all advance exceed ino two instalments, Anv intention to ctose the loan accou nt shall be intim ted 6 months in advance a nd make thej:ryment with the reouired premature premium."

9. The leirrned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner r;ttbmits that the petitioner made p;ryment as per clause 19 of the sanction letter dated O6-O7-2012, the said plea is disputed in the counter filed by the respondent corporation and a specific stand is; taken by the respondent corporation at page 6 and para '!l' of the counter affirlavit contending that the clause 19t of the sanction lr:tter is applicable only to primany security L4 basing on the development agreement and further NOC has to be obtained prior to sale of the property and the same was not followed by the petitioner and the petitioner unit votuntarily made the payment without NOC.

10. This court opines that though condition annexed to the special terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated O6-O7-2OLZ issued to the petitioner by the respondent corporation indicates that 3 o/o premium woutd be charged for all advance payment of instatments of principal exceeding two instalments, this court opines that the same was not intimated to the petitioner in the email dated l3-Ot-2O2O of the respondent corporation addressed to the petitioner unit and the petitioner unit was called upon to make a payment of Rs, 15OO/_ for closure of the loan account towards interest. This court opines that nothing prevented the respondent bank to mention about the payment of 3o/o premium amount by the petitioner for alt advance payment of instatments of principal exceeding two instalments as stipulated in condition no 41 of the sanctioned terms of loan by the respondent corporation beside the foreclosure charges. 15 Only foreclosure charges are mentioned in the saild email dated 13-O;t- 2020 and the subsequent email issued by the respondent corporation dated 18-O7-202O referred to and extracterl above is in contradiction of the email dated 13- O7-2O2O ist;ued to the petltioner and the petitioner was curiously Iequested to pay the premature prremium charges including GST of Rs. 685000/- tov{ards the subject loatr closure.

11. It is settled law that a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, front asserting a right which otherwise rnrolrld have had. On l:his ground alone, this court opines that petitioner's representation dated fJs.O9.2022 addressed to the respondent corporation to release entire mortgaged properties vrhich are in the custody of the respondent corporation by executing Re-conveyance deed in be considered trY the 2nd petitioner's; favour, needs to respondenl: r:orporation.

12. Takin q. into consideration l - (a) 'Ihe aforesaid facts and circumstan€es of the cir se; :l l 15 (b) The submissions made by the learned counset for petitioner and also learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 (c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to S. (d) Sanctaon letter vide AFClpROJ_IlT_tl74gOAz OL/2OL2-L3, dated 06.07.2012 by ApSFC to the petitioner herein and in particular Clause 19 (referred to and extracted above); (d) Email, dated LB.O7.2O2O from the Znd respondent to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above) (e) Email, dated La.O7.2O2O from the 2d respondent to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above); (f) Condition number 41 of the Sanction tetter vide AFCIPROJ-I I T-r / 7 4 9Oa2 oL / 2OtZ- L3, dated O6_ O7-2OL2 by APSFC to the petitioner. 77 Ther Writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner dated OS.Og.2022, in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated O5.0-ct.7OZ2 within a period of four(4) wr:et<s from the date ol receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision on the subject isstre to the petitioner. Fiowever, there sha be no order as to crlsts. Miscellanr:)ous petitions, if any, pending in il-,is Writ Petition, sl'ra ll s:and closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.'V.S.PRASAD DEPUT'/ REGISIRAR \'i" SECTION OFFICER One Fair rlolry to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREpALt.I N,6,NDA (For Her Ladyships Kind perusal) _ To,

1. The Princrpal tsecretary, Finance Department, Telanga ra Secretariat, Hyderabad Sr. r', rf Telangana. Telangana Divi; r_,rr, Ranga Reddy lfasty eranCn, rerangana Divis;i:n, "Ransa incorporated urrdr,:-State Financial bdrporjtion Act LXlll ol,t g: ti

2. The Branr;h lrlanag_er, Andhra pradesh State Finanr;i;rl Corporation, Reddv^ reaiii sr;Jhl A 'si;ii,i;;,./ "c"Jio"J;'ii,i" 3 The Senior Brrrr:h ,\Ianager, Andhra pradesh state Financ ar corporation, 4 The Assistant or: rera.r rvanager, Andhra pradesh state Financiar corporation, 5. The Joint Nlan I r,rrn _Director, Andhra pradesh State Financ al Corporation Iglrngqlq Divi;, r,- *rlnq ryqqoi-ierliiai#.n, nz to nr' ;;.;'i:e:i';;' Chirag Ali Lane Fti,derabld _ 5oo 6oi. ' rrs oL \,-.,- rv+, Telangana Divir;ir:r, Ranga R;ddy (E;si) Br;;;h,

6. 1'1 LR Copir,s , I[:rY:fl,ild:;,., Union of tndia, Ministry of Law, Justice ard company ' Jlfrr rt&:'fitru;rJ#ns'n' Advocates Association, Library, High court 9. One CC to SRt C.S.N.RAJU, Advocate tOpUCI 10.One CC to SRt R.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SC FOR APSFC tOpUCl " II3,3S"'rt",rtf;"tffri}fiicE PLANNTNG' Hish court ror the srate or 1 2. Two CD Copies w BSR GJP r, l, I t' I ) I I : C C TODAY I I L HIGH COL'RT DATED:01 105t2025 \ \ "<1'itti- :ir \ ).t- o ORDER WP.No.107lii\ o12023 :l3 0g I 202h \..'\- '.'.) '', - r: " (' > Z Lll .{\ DISPOSING CF THE WRIT PETITION' WITHOUT CIDSTS 1 a t