Telangana High Court
WP/41079/2014 of Rekha Ponnaganti Vs Andhra Bank, on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No.41079 OF 2014 ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the Educational Loan Account
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANUAND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.41079 OF 2014
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in treating the EducationalLoan Account No.020130031000850 as Non-Performing Asset under the provisions of the Securitization andReconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”) and also the demandnotice, dated 30.08.2014, published in Hindu Daily on 11.10.2014 asillegal and arbitrary.
2. Petitioner No.1 obtained educational loan of Rs.6.00 lakhs fromthe respondent Bank to prosecute her higher studies in M.S. two yearscourse in United States of America. She paid some instalments andlater, committed default in repayment of the entire loan amount. Theloan was declared as Non-performing Asset (N.P.A.). RespondentNo.3 published a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,dated 30.08.2014, in Hindu Daily News paper on 11.10.2014.According to the petitioners, they paid the entire loan amount due tothe Bank and according to the respondent Bank, the petitioners aredue an amount of Rs.6,06,958/- as on 30.07.2014 with subsequentinterest as per the agreement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that withoutissuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, therespondent Bank is proceeding further; that all the loan instalmentsdue to the respondent Bank have been paid; that under sub-section(3A) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, on receipt of the notice undersub-section (3), if the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the Bank shall consider such representation or objectionand if the secured creditor comes to a conclusion that suchrepresentation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shallcommunicate the same within fifteen days of receipt of suchrepresentation or objection the reasons for rejecting the representationand therefore, he prays to admit the writ petition.
4. Since the demand notice, dated 30.08.2014, is in dispute and thecontentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners arerelating to the questions of fact, they cannot be determined by thisCourt. Whether the respondent Bank issued a notice under Section13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the petitioners, whether the petitionersmade a representation to the respondent Bank and whether thepetitioners paid all the instalments or not are to be pleaded and provedbefore the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners are atliberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 ofthe SARFAESI Act and raise all these contentions there.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this WritPetition shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
_______________
JUSTICE ANIS
Date: 31.12.2014
AMD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANUAND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.41079 OF 2014
DATE: 31.12.2014
AMD