HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29000 OF 2010 Between: Smt K. Jayaprada D/o K. Suresh Reddy ………….Petitioner AND State Bank of India represented by its Authorized Officer, Stressed Assets Resolution Centre, Nampally, Hyderabad and two others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in trying to dispose of the property of the petitioner by classifying the same as ‘non performing asset’ as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent sanctioned credit facility of an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the second respondent herein on 19.2.2009 to be paid in 24 monthly instalments and to which the petitioner stood as guarantor. As the business of the second respondent suffered huge loss and there is no business being conducted by it, from September 2009 the payments were irregular. Therefore, the first respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short ‘the SRFAESI Act) on 18.8.2010 and also issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act, asking the petitioner and also the second respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 24,31,216/-. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 2.11.2010 and on 1.9.2010 she paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 3,40,000/- was paid through cheque No. 26226 dated 1.9.2010 totaling to Rs. 7,40,000/- therefore, the claim under the impugned notice has to be reduced to Rs. 16,91,216/- and even after receiving substantial amount and in view of the fact that loan repayment schedule is till 18.2.2011, the first respondent is trying to proceed further and conduct auction contrary to law, . The first respondent sanctioned a credit facility for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-, and till September 2009 the payments were paid regularly and after that the payments were irregular. Therefore, the first respondent-Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and also notice under Section 13(4) of the Act asking the petitioner and the second respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 24,31,216/-. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in SLP © No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 observed as under: “It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” Following the above Supreme Court Judgment, the Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 23.11.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.