Smt.Y.M.S.Vijaya Lakshmi v. State Bank Of India
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITIO N NO: 37410 OF 2021 Betwee n:
S.mt.Y.M.-S.Vijaya Lalshmi, Wo.Late Sri Gaddam Joshi Babu, a_bout 53 years, Occ.Housewife, Rl/o. Flat No.301, 3rd Floor, Nilayam, H.No.'1 5-21 -831 1 1301, Bataji Nagar, Kukatpalty, Hyderabad.
2. Sri.Gaddam Prabhath Joshi, S/o.Late Sri Gaddam Joshi Babu, Hindu. Aoed about.2_0-years, 9cc Siuggn]r Flio.Ftat No.301, 3rd Ftoor, Samyuftni i iifavim, H. No. 1 5-21 -83 I 1 1301, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpaily, Hyderabad. Hindu, Aged Samyuktha ...PETITIONER'S AND !taJ9 B_a1k-gl.lndia, Represented by its Authorized Officer, R/o.RACpC, Dr.No.5-1-63/3, 2nd Floor, KKR Arige Complex, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. State Bank of 1ndia,, Represented by its Branch l\ilanager, R/o.pBB Temple tsranch, Near Temple Bus Stand, Kukatpally Housrng Board Colony, Hyderabad SBI Life lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Authorised officer, R/o.Regd.Office at Nalraj ttl V Eqqg Et Western Expiess Highway J u nction.And heri (E), tMumbai-400069.
RESPONDENT'S Petition under Article 226 ol lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order/direction or any appropriate writ, more particularly one in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondents in initiating proceedings by issuing notice under section 13(2) of securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest Act 2002, daled 2811012021 together with its tetter dt.OS/1 1l2O2t, despite opening SBt Suraksha loan account No.3769 155261 for Rs.i,16,518/- for lnsurance coverige of House Property bearing Flat No.301, in 3rd Floor, bearing Municipal No.
1521183111301 of Samyuktha Nilayam, situated at Bataji Nagar, Kukatpaily Village, Balanagar Mandal, under GHMC Kukatpally circle, Ranga Reddy District, is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of SARFAESI Act and RBI guidelines, and consequently command the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of petitioners Flat No.301, in 3rd Floor, bearing Ir/unicipal No.15-21i83/1/301 of Samyuktha Nilayam, situated at Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally Village, Balanagar l\zlandal, under GHMC Kukatpally circle, Ranga Reddy District, in any manner.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct
'all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice under .ization and Reconstruction of Financial ,Assets and / lnterest Act 2002, dated 2811012021, including rs housing property bearing Flat No.301, in 3rd Floor, 5-21183t11301 of Samyuktha Nilayam, situated at illage, Balanagar Mandal, under GHMC Kukatpally circle, ry mariner, pending the above Writ Petitioa' ir the interest the respondents to StaY c Section 13(2) of Secur Enforcement of Securil dispossession of Petitiont bearing Municipal No.'
Balaji Nagar, KukatpallY \ Ranga Reddy District, in e of justice.
Counsel forthe Petitione 's: SRl. HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA Counsel for the Respond rnt's: PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES The Court made the follo' ring: ORDER
I JUSTTCE UJJAL BHUYAN HONOURABLE SR AND ..lusfrcc P. NtADHAvI DEvl HONOURABLE SMT W,P.No,37 410 oF2 2l Bi rru' g on'ble sri Justice uijal Bhuvan) leamed counsel for the Heard Mr'Harikishan I(udikala'
petitioners.
2.
Petitioners are aggrieved by rejection of their objection by respondent Nos'1 and 2 to the notice issued under Section 13(2) ofthe Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act' 2002 (briefly' 'the SARFAESI Act' hereinafter)'
3.
Be it stated that respondentNos'1 and 2 had issued notice to the petitioners on 2g.10.2021 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon them to discharge the liability in full amounting to Rs.19,04,747'00 as on 27 '10'2021 '
4. In response to the above notice' petitioner No' 1 submitted objection dated 02 11'2021 stating that the housing loan account was covered under the Suraksha Scheme' Therefore' respondent Nos.1 and 2 were requested to recover the liabilities from the Suraksha Scheme,
2.
5.
By the co,respondence dated 05.11.2021,, responclent Nos.1 and 2 informed petitioner No. 1 that the housing loan accottt-lt No.35797682407 of the husband of petitioner No.l is not covered under the State B rnk of India Suraksha Scheme. Aggrieved, present writ petition has t :en filed 6.
The provi ,o to sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act :larifies that the reasons so communicatetl while rejecting an obj:ction filed by the borrower to a notice under sub-section (2) r f Section 13 or the likely action of the secured creditor at the sti ge of communication of reasons. would no1 confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the jurisdictional De rts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 or to the court of Distric Judge under Section 17A. By way of further clarification, it i: provided in the Explanation belo$, the ploviso to sub-section (1) o: Section l7 that communication ol the reasons to the borrower by th r secured creditor of having not accep'.ed his representation or objection or the likely action of the seculed creditor at the stage of c rmmunication of reasons to the borrou,er, shall not entitle the persor (including borrower) to make an applicrrtion to the Debts Recovery ' 'ribunal under sub-section (1) of Section 17 7.
Ifthat be t, Le legal position, there can be no cause for institution ol the present wr . petition.
That being the position, writ petition is dismissed. flowever, disrnissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioners frort availing their legal rernedies as and when catlse of action artses' g.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pendirlg, shall stand closed'
10. No costs SD/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR II SECTION OFFICER To, //TRUE COPY'
1. One CC to SRl. HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA Advocate IOPUCI
2. One CC to PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES Advocate IOPUCI
3. Two CD copies.
4. One spare copy.
NPJ rr GB
HIGH COURT DATED:31 112120 21 1rr? S IA f6'
c\ /^-\ t,iq \ 2 g ,ll'N 202'l 1,:
io { \
ORDER
\.
+.
I WP.No.37410 ot 2021 DISMISSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COST S.
Aft)