WP/29072/2011 of Smt. G. Laxmi Prasanna Vs The Authorised Officer on 29 December 2011

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDAND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO. 29072 OF 2011

Between:

Smt. G. Laxmiprasanna W/o G. Surendra and fourothers

………….PETITIONERS

AND

The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India and sixothers

………….Respondents

ORDER (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed)

The five petitioners, instituted this Writ Petitionchallenging the validity of the notice issued by therespondents 1 and 2 in terms of Sub Section (2) ofSection 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction ofFinancial Assets and Enforcement of Security InterestAct, 2002, proposing to take possession of Flatsbearing Nos. 101, 102, 202, 301 and 302 in M/sV.C.Deluxe, Situated on Plot Nos. 45 and 46, Ward No.45, Venkataramana Colony, Kurnool, as illegal.

The petitioners submit that they are bonafide purchasers of the aforementioned flats, which weresold by the unofficial respondents. The un-officialrespondents are the borrowers of the respondents 1and 2, Bankers. They appeared to have committeddefault in repaying the loan amount and consequentlyrespondents 1 and 2 have proceeded against theborrowers, the unofficial respondents 3 to 7. In theprocess of realizing the loan amount, the respondents 1 and 2 have proposed to put to public auction the flatsbearing Nos. 101, 102, 202, 301 and 302 in M/sV.C.Deluxe, Situated on Plot Nos. 45 and 46, Ward No.45, Venkataramana Colony, Kurnool, purchased bythem.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are still seven flats, which areunsold available in the complex. Therefore, therespondents 1 and 2 may seek disposal of those sevenflats at the first instance and appropriate the saleproceeds towards outstanding loan amount of theofficial respondents 3 to 7. Should there be any moreamount lying outstanding, the petitioners could pool upnecessary money and deposit the same with therespondents 1 and 2 with liberty to proceed against theunofficial respondents 3 to 7 for getting indemnified, forthe damage and loss caused to the petitioners in thatprocess.

Without pronouncing any opinion on merits, weare clearly of the view that we cannot entertain thevarious contentions canvassed by the petitioners herein in this writ petition. But however, the suggestion of the petitioners deserves acceptance. Therefore,respondents 1 and 2 are directed to put to sale theflats, which are not yet sold in favour of the thirdparties, not constructed by the respondents 3 to 7 atthe first instance. The sale proceeds may beappropriated to the loan account of the respondents 3to 7 and the outstanding balance amount may then beintimated to the petitioners, so that they may liquidatethe same within a further period of 30 days from thedate of receipt of such notice.

With the above observation, the Writ Petitionstands disposed of. There shall be no order as tocosts.

________________________

GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

________________________________

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

DATE: 29.12.2011

KA

Note: Furnish copy in two days.

... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To