Telangana High Court
WP/36586/2013 of P.TIRUMALREDDY Vs Bank of Baroda on 31 December 2013
G. ROHINI and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT PETITION No.36586 of 2013 Date: December 31, 2013 Between: P. Tirumalreddy. … Petitioner And Bank of Baroda, A.S. Rao Nagar Branch, Secunderabad, rep. by Its Authorised Officer. … Respondent * * * HON’BLE Ms.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIand
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY
WRIT PETITION No.36586 of 2013
Date: December 31, 2013
Between:P. Tirumalreddy. … Petitioner
And
Bank of Baroda,
A.S. Rao Nagar Branch,Secunderabad, rep. by Its Authorised Officer.
… Respondent
* * *
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIandHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY
WRIT PETITION No.36586 of 2013
O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G. Rohini)
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that theaction of the respondent in issuing the notice dated 25.04.2013under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction ofFinancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short ‘the Act’) is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, weare unable to hold that the impugned notice which is only ademand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act (published inthe local dailies dated 27.05.2013) suffered from any illegalitywarranting interference by this Court, since if aggrieved it isalways open to the petitioner to submit her objections to the said notice.
However, it is pleaded by the petitioner that beforepublishing the impugned notice in the local dailies, it was notserved on her. The said allegation has been denied by the learnedcounsel for the respondent Bank stating that the petitioner herselfhad deliberately evaded service of notice and therefore therespondent Bank having proceeded further issued the possessionnotice under Section 13(4) of the Act. The learned counsel for therespondent has also placed before this Court a copy of thereturned postal cover which shows that the notice sent byregistered post was returned with a postal endorsement ‘party wasout of station for seven days’.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the possessionnotice came to be issued without considering the petitioner’sobjections. We have also taken note of the specific plea of thepetitioner that the secured assets included a house property andagricultural land. Under the circumstances, we deem itappropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioner to submit herobjections to the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of theAct.
Accordingly, the possession notice dated 22.10.2013 isset aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the writpetitioner to submit her objections to the impugned demand noticedated 25.04.2013 (published on 27.05.2013) on or before08.01.2014. If any objections are received within the time fixedabove, the respondent Bank shall consider the same and pass anappropriate order in terms of sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of theAct and communicate the same to the petitioner. Thereafter, it isopen to the respondent Bank to proceed further in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending inthe writ petition shall stand closed.
______________
G. ROHINI, J
Date: December 31, 2013.BSB
__________________________
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY
WRIT PETITION No.36586 of 2013 (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G. Rohini)
BSB
Date: December 31, 2013