If the IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 15041 of 2009 Between: United Enterpries, Rep by its Managing Partner, Syed Anwar S/o. Syed Akbar, aged 62, Occ: Business, R/o. 12-5-108, Moosapet, Bharatnagar Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Charminar Co-operative Bank, Rep by its Deputy Registrar/ OSD/FR, Hyderabad. 2 Charminar Co-operaitve Bank, Rep by its Managing Director/JR 5-9- 3, JVL Tower, Opp: Assembly Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notice dt.20-6-2009 for sale of immovable property of the petitioner and his guarantor vide E.P.No.46/2000 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the impugned notice dt. 20-06-2009, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.15041 of 2009 ORDER: According to the deponent, who claims to be the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm, the petitioner firm had availed a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondent Bank in the year 1998 by mortgaging his properties with the respondent Bank, and, thereafter, as he could not repay the loan amount due to slack in the business, the respondent Bank had initiated recovery proceedings vide E.P.No.46 of 2000. On coming to know of the same, immediately he rushed to the respondent Bank and requested for one-time settlement, for which the respondent Bank has agreed for the same and, by letter dated 04.12.2007, released a part of the mortgaged property on payment of Rs.30,00,000/- towards part payment of the loan amount. He also contends that if some time is granted to him for repayment of the outstanding amount, he is ready to pay the entire outstanding amount as per one-time settlement. While so, the grievance of the deponent is that though the respondent Bank has agreed for one-time settlement, it has proceeded with the execution proceedings in E.P.No.46 of 2000 by issuing the impugned notice dated 20.06.2009 for sale of the remaining mortgaged properties retained by it towards security of the balance loan amount payable by the petitioner firm and, therefore, the same is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the respondent Bank grants some time to the petitioner, the petitioner is ready to pay the amount outstanding to the respondent Bank. Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that he has no objection if the petitioner pays the due amount within a period of four weeks from today. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the agreed stand taken by both the counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The petitioner is directed to pay the due amount to the respondent Bank within a period of four weeks from today. In default, the respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further with the sale as per the impugned notice dated 20.06.2009.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 28.07.2009 v v