Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of at the admission stage
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
1 State Bank of India, (Govt. of India undertaking) Main Branch, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. Rep. by its Manager. 2 The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam. 3 M/s Sri Kamakshi Granite Metal Industries, Rep. by its Proprietor Bandi Ashok Kumar, S/o. Venkateswarlu, age: 52 years, Burugupudi (V), Korukonda (M), E.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the notice for proclamation of sale dt. 05.02.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent to sell the agricultural lands of the petitioners situated in R.S.Nos.636, 541 and 171 to an extent of Ac.10.47 in Yerrabalem Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District in respect of debt due from the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the notice of proclamation of sale dt. 05.02.2008 in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GIRI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared. The Court made the following :
ORDER:
The third respondent appears to have availed certain financial assistance from the first respondent bank and has committed default in repaying the debt amount. Consequently, the first respondent had taken recourse to the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, to recover the debts due to it. It is asserted by the petitioners that the third respondent had committed default and that they are not in the know of the proceedings that have been launched by the first respondent bank for recovery of the outstanding liability. But, however, from the sale proclamation issued by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, it becomes clear that in the proceedings instituted by the first respondent bank in O.A.No.963 of 2002, a certificate, crystallizing the debt, was issued on 12.09.2003. It is also asserted by the petitioners that the total loan liability is in the order of Rs.50,00,000/-. The petitioners have proposed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on or before 21.04.2008 to the credit of the loan account.
They also seek to submit proposals with the first respondent bank to liquidate the balance liability, within a further time of four months thereafter. Though normally this Court would be reluctant and would be very slow in interfering with the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, nonetheless with a view to bring a quick end to the entire process of litigation and at the same time to ensure that the total liability of the bank is also liquidated, the following order is passed: If the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) on or before 21.04.2008, the first respondent bank shall not give effect to any further steps or proceedings pursuant to the Certificate of Recovery issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in O.A.No.963 of 2002. The petitioners shall also submit a proposal to the satisfaction of the first respondent for liquidating the balance outstanding liability within a further period of four months either in one lump sum or in monthly instalments, which the bank may consider and pass appropriate orders thereon.
Operative part
If for any reason, the petitioners commit default in making the initial deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- on before 21.04.2008 or commit default in payment of any of the proposed instalments with regard to the balance outstanding liability, the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal be given effect for the purpose of liquidating the liability, without any further recourse to this Court. The writ petition stands disposed of at the admission stage. The learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for permission of this Court to delete the second respondent from the array of parties, as the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not needed to be impleaded as party respondents to this writ petition. Permission is accordingly granted and the second respondent, as impleaded, has been deleted from the array of parties. _____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: 19.03.2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of at the admission stage
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.