IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4290 of 2008 Between: M/s. S.V.M. & Co., a Proprietary concern rep. by its Proprietor S.K. Sridhar, S/o. Subramanyam, R/o. 6-7-559/A, Sripuram Colony, Hare Rama Hare Krishna Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office at Gunfoundry, Hyderabad Rep. by its Managing Director. 2 State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office at Gunfoundry, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chief General Manager. 3 State Bank of Hyderabad, Tirupati, rep. by its Authorised Officer at PMR Complex, Opp: New Municipal Office, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ....RESPONDENTS 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 any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice dt.24.01.2007 issued under Sec.13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and consequential notice dt. 17.01.2008 issued under Sec. 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and also the consequential auction notice published on 24.02.2008 effecting sale of mortgaged properties on 26.03.2008 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of mandatory directions issued under Sec.13(2) and Sec.13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and also in violation of directives and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and also violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently suspend the operation of the said notices and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DORAI RAJ Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : O R D E R: Though this writ petition has been instituted questioning the validity of the notices published under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would suggest that if a reasonable period of time is granted, his client is in fact anxious to settle the dispute with the respondent-Bank at the earliest and to establish his bona fides in this regard, he submits that his client will be depositing Rs.2.50 lakhs to the loan account latest, by 15th April, 2008 and that he will also submit a proposal to the respondent-Bank suggesting the reasonable time within which he would be liquidating the balance of the outstanding liability duly reconciling the account maintained by the Bank. If the writ petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) to the credit of the loan account, on or before 15th April, 2008, and also comes up with a proposal to liquidate the balance outstanding liability, within a further period of three months thereafter, which the respondent-Bank will consider and appropriately modulate it, the auction that is now sought to be conducted shall not be finalized at all. Should there be any default on the part of the petitioner in this process, the auction is liable to be confirmed without any further notice to the petitioner. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of at the admission stage. __________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dated 14th March, 2008 Note: Issue C.C in two days (b/o) vrn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}