Telangana High Court
WP/27411/2005 of B.Sankaram, Vs The Authorised Officer , CM (CSE), on 23 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.27411 OF 2005 Dated: 23-12-2005 Between B. Sankaram, S/o. late Yellaya, Ex-employee, R/o. D.No.43-18-26, Venkataraju Nagar, Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam. …PETITIONER AND The Authorized Officer, CM (CSE), SBI Zonal Office, Region – II,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.27411 OF 2005
Dated: 23-12-2005
Between
B. Sankaram, S/o. late Yellaya, Ex-employee, R/o. D.No.43-18-26, Venkataraju Nagar, Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam.
AND
The Authorized Officer, CM (CSE),
SBI Zonal Office, Region – II,
Visakhapatnam and others.
…PETITIONER
…RESPONDENTS
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.
ORDER:
Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in issuingthe impugned possession notice dated 30.11.2005 as illegal and arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained a loan from thesecond respondent bank and as he could not discharge the said loan, the secondrespondent bank filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sompetafor recovery of the said housing loan amount. During the pendency of the said suit therespondents have issued a notice dated 19.07.2005 under Section 13(2) of theSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security InterestAct, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) calling upon the petitioner to pay the housing loan amount of Rs.2,36,417/- within sixty days from the date of the notice.
However, the petitioner replied to the said notice on 01.08.2005 stating that the subjectmatter of the loan was adjusted from the provident fund of the petitioner. But without takinginto account the amount paid by the petitioner, the first respondent with the help of thesecond respondent issued the impugned possession notice dated 30.11.2005 underSection 13(4) of the Act stating that the first respondent has taken constructive possessionof the property of the petitioner.
This Court is of the opinion that when an effective alternative remedy of right to appeal to theDebts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act is available to the petitioner, it is notjust and proper to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with aliberty to the petitioner to avail the effective alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act.
______________
V. ESWARAIAH, J
December 23, 2005DSK