Telangana High Court
WP/28380/2009 of Kambampati Subburam Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28380 of 2009 Between: Kambampati Subburam.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDYANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
WRIT PETITION No.28380 of 2009
Between:
Kambampati Subburam.
… Petitioner
And
The State Bank of Hyderabad, represented by its authorized officer.… Respondent This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDYANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
WRIT PETITION No.28380 of 2009
ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY)
This writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued underSection 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “theAct”) apprehending that without following the procedure and issuing thenotice under Section 13(4) of the Act, the respondent-bank may takepossession of the property. It is specifically alleged that no notice assuch under Section 13(4) Rule 8 of the Act has been published so far.
In view of the same, petitioner is at liberty to file his response/objections to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act,within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filingsuch objections, respondent-bank can consider the same and passappropriate orders and can proceed with under Section 13(4) of the Act. Until the petitioner’s objections are considered and disposed of,respondent-bank shall not take any coercive steps. In the event, therespondent-bank rejected the objections, the petitioner is at liberty tochallenge the same by way of appeal before the Debts RecoveryTribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
__________________A.GOPAL REDDY, J
29[th] December 2009
________________
NOUSHAD ALI, J
Note:C.C. by wireB/o.Lmv