IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 10406 of 2007 Between: M/s. Sri Datta Venkata Cotton GinningIndustry, Karagapadi Village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, rep by its Managing Partner Sri Kopparthy Krishna Murthy S/o Venkata Ratna aged 54 R/o Akividu Village, andmandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District 2 The Authorised Officer, Canara bank, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction (S) Particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent bank in Ref. BVRM:SARFAESI: 141:2007 dated March 20, 2007 and consequential Letter Dated : may 2. 2007 to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Principles of natural Justice and to further direct the 1st Respondent to settle and release the compensation amount for the damage caused to the petitioner in the fire accident, tothe 2nd Respondent Bank with interest @ 18% per annum, and pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.E.VENUGOPAL REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 10406 OF 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah, J) 1. In this writ petition the petitioner questions the notice dated 20.3.2007 under Section 13 (2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) as well as consequential letter dated 2.5.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm established in the year 2004 for doing business in cotton ginning and spinning and for the purpose of running the factory, the petitioner firm availed a term loan from the 2nd respondent-bank and repaid an amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs by 26.6.2006. Thereafter the factory was gutted in fire accident which occurred on the intervening night of 26/27.6.2006. It is stated that as the petitioner firm was insured with the 1st respondent, he made a claim for compensation, but the 1st respondent negatived the claim, against which the petitioner has filed a case before the A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission, Hyderabad claiming compensation of Rs.98,89,000/- and the said case is pending. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent-bank treated the petitioner’s account as non-performing asset and initiated action against the petitioner by issuing a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, for which a suitable reply was given by the petitioner. It is alleged that without considering the reply given by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued a consequential letter on 2.5.2007 asking the petitioner to pay the debt, failing which action will be taken under the provisions of the Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner also approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and filed SA No. 144 of 2008 which is pending. If that be so, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue parallel proceedings for the self same relief, questioning the action of the 2nd respondent-bank under Section 13 of the Act. It is left open to the petitioner to pursue his case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and also the insurance claim pending before the A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and he can take all those pleas which are available to him in law. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt.17.3.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{NS}