Telangana High Court
WP/47380/2018 of M/s Lakshmi Narayana Traders Vs The Authorized Officer on 31 December 2018
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO +W.P.No.47380 of 2018 %Date: 31-12-2018 #Between: M/s. Lakshmi Narayana Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor G.
* I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE V.RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P. KESHAVA RAO
+ W.P.No.47380 of 2018
--% Date: 31122018
Betw een:M/s. Lakshmi Narayana Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor G. Mallikarjuna Raju, S/o. Narayana Raju, D.No.7-91 and 7-91A, Kattakindha Palyam, Punganur Town, Chittoor Disrict, A.P.
….. Petitioner
And
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.
1. The Authorized Officer, M/s. State Bank of India, A.D.B. Punganur, Chittoor District, A.P. Chittoor District, A.P.
2. M/s. State Bank of India, Punganur Branch, East Peta, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Badichowdi Branch, Punganur, Chittoor District, A.P. Branch Manager, Badichowdi Branch, Punganur, Chittoor District, A.P.
…. Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Gade Venkateswara Rao ^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. M. Srikanth Reddy < GI ST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P. KESHAVA RAO
W.P.No.47380 of 2018
ORDER:(Per VRS,J)
Contending that the account of the petitioner has not become non performing asset and that therefore, the possession notice and the notice under Rule 8(6) are illegal, the borrower has come up with the above writ petition.
2. Heard Mr. Gade Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. According to the petitioner, He has been regularly paying the monthly interest on the cash credit and that merely because the amount paid by him in respect of one month was little lesser than the monthly installment, the respondent has initiated proceedings even before the account has become non-performing asset.
4. But the contention of the petitioner hinges on completely factual details. These factual details are better adjudicated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the writ petition is closed. There will be no order as to costs.
5. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN, J.
31[st] December, 2018 Js.
_______________
P. KESHAVA RAO, J.
Js.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P. KESHAVA RAO
W.P.No.47380 of 2018
31[st ]December, 2018