Telangana High Court
WP/44956/2017 of SUMANA ELECTRONICS Vs LAKSHMI VILAS BANK on 29 December 2017
SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND HONBLE DR JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 44956 OF 2017 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The prayer of the petitioner in this case reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND
HONBLE DR JUSTI CE B.SI VA SANKARA RAO
WRI T PETI TI ON No. 44956 OF 2017
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)
The prayer of the petitioner in this case reads as under:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Direction or an Order which particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent bank in pursuance to the demand notice dated 24.10.2017 u/s 13(2) under SARFAESI Act in respect of the property of all that the property bearing D.No.56/2-13 old ward 2/2-13 on plot Nos.10&11 in Sy.No.47/5, admeasuring 242 Sq.yds or Ac.0.05 Cents situated at Akkayapalli (V) fields, Kadapa District is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent not to enforce the said notice and pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon’ble High Court deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Sri T. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in response to the impugned demand notice dated 24.10.2017, the petitioner submitted representation dated 31.10.2017 but, without considering the same, the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, the respondent herein, published the demand notice in the newspaper.
In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Devi I spat Ltd. vs. State Bank of I ndia[1] and Punjab National Bank vs. I mperial Gift House[2], a writ petition would not lie ordinarily against a demand notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving all issues open. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
______________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 29.12.2017
va
______________________
Dr. B.SI VA SANKARA RAO, J
1 (2014) 5 SCC 762
2 (2013) 14 SCC 622