W.P No. 16783 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 11 Aug 2010
- Bench
- GHULAM MOHAMMED, G CHANDRAIAH
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:11.08.2010 Note: Issue CC by three days. (Bo)
Judgment
(Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) The petitioners obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs from the respondent Bank, to purchase a flat, by mortgaging the property in question. As they have committed default, the respondent Bank issued notice, dated 08.03.2010, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). Since there was no response from the petitioners, the respondent Bank issued another notice, dated 25.05.2010, to deliver possession of the secured assets on or before 02.06.2010. Thereafter, the respondent Bank is proceeding to take physical possession of the property in question vide order, dated
19.06.2007 in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy. It is stated that though the petitioners approached the respondent Bank on 30.06.2010 to regularize the loan account by taking all over due amounts till date, it has not accepted the same. Hence, they filed the present writ petition seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Bank in insisting to vacate the property in question, as illegal and arbitrary.
On 16.07.2010, this Court while admitting the writ petition, granted interim stay of all further proceedings on condition of the petitioners paying a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-within a period of two weeks from that date.
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel on either side that the petitioners have complied with the above said interim order passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, is not sitting regularly, the petitioners approached this Court. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay further amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, if time is granted and for remaining outstanding amount, they will continue to pay the same instalments regularly. Learned Standing Counsel respondent Bank has acceded to the same.
Taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the acceptance of the learned Standing Counsel the respondent Bank, we direct petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) within four weeks from today and continue to pay the remaining amount in instalments as fixed by the respondent Bank from the month of September, 2010 onwards, in default, the respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.
Operative part
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:11.08.2010 Note: Issue CC by three days. (Bo)
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?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 11 Aug 2010. The bench was GHULAM MOHAMMED, G CHANDRAIAH.
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.