WP/41216/2014 of M/s. Bhaskarpadma Rice Industry, Vs Andhra Bank, Having registered office at Koti, on 31 December 2014

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANUANDTHE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

WRIT PETITION No.41216 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 respondent No.4 – the Debts RecoveryTribunal, Visakhapatnam in not passing any orders on the stay petition– I.A.No.864 of 2014 in S.A.No.306 of 2014 as illegal and arbitrary,and consequently, to stay the sale of the property pursuant to thenotification, dated 24.11.2014, published in New Indian Express.

2. Petitioner availed credit facilities from the respondent Bank in theyear 2009 and created mortgage of the properties towards security. Itpaid some instalments and later, committed default in repayment of theentire loan amount. The loan was declared as Non-performing Asset. Initially, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization andReconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”) was issued by therespondent Bank on 01.07.2014 and thereafter, a notice of sale of thesecured property was issued on 01.10.2014. Petitioner made arepresentation on 12.11.2014 stating that it is ready to pay the entireamount by 31.01.2015 and requested time. Respondent No.2addressed a letter, dated 15.11.2014, stating that all the propertieswould be handed over to the petitioner only after clearing all the duesin all the accounts and bringing all the accounts in order. While so, anotification was published in the New Indian Express, Vijayawada on24.11.2014 stating that the mortgaged property of the petitioner firmand the property belonging to the individual partners would be broughtto sale on 31.12.2014. In the said notification, it is mentioned that theamount due as on 30.06.2014 is Rs.19,26,48,803/- instead ofRs.17,73,91,649/-. So, the petitioner filed Securitization Application No.306 of 2014 along with I.A.No.864 of 2014 for stay of all furtherproceedings. Respondent No.4, without passing any orders on thatapplication, posted the matter to 03.02.2015. Hence, the petitionerfiled the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner isready to pay the entire amount due to the respondent Bank if areasonable time is granted to it and hence, he prays to interdict the E-auction notice.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent Bank opposed the same and prays to dismiss the writpetition.

5. The respondent Bank is interested only to recover the entireamount due. As the petitioner came forward to discharge the entireoutstanding amount to the bank, reasonable time can be granted toenable the petitioner to pay the entire amount due to the Bank. Therefore, we direct the petitioner to pay the entire outstanding loanamount to the Bank within a period of six (6) weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. However, the E-auction can go on, butsale shall not be confirmed. If the petitioner fails to fulfil the abovecondition within the stipulated time, the sale shall be confirmed and thesale certificate shall be issued to the highest bidder/auctionpurchaser. Registry is directed not to entertain any applicationseeking “Extension of Time” or “For being mentioned” in this regard.

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pendingin this Writ Petition 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.41216 OF 2014

DATE: 31.12.2014

AMD