Writ Petition No. 17085 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- GHULAM MOHAMMED, K G SHANKAR
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Since an appropriate remedy is available to the petitioners, the question of entertaining the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioners are at…
Judgment
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-bank in issuing the possession notice, dated 23.10.2010, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary.
Petitioners borrowed an amount of Rs.23,10,100/- from the respondent-bank for the purpose of business and repaid an amount of Rs.2,59,000/-. However, as they committed default in repayment of the balance loan amount, respondent-bank issued demand notice, dated
15.07.2010, calling upon them to repay an amount of Rs.26,77,704.72/- within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Since the said amount was not repaid, the respondent-bank issued the impugned possession notice, dated 23.10.2010, to take possession of the property in question.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
Since an appropriate remedy is available to the petitioners, the question of entertaining the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioners are at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by 01.07.2011 within two weeks. Meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent-bank. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 21st July, 2011 Tsy
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.