THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.13557 of 2009 26-04-2010 BETWEEN; Suryapaga Ravikumar son of Lazarus and another ...Petitioners vs. State Bank of Hyderabad, rep. by its Authorised Officer, Tirupathi and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.13557 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners an Sri Ch.Siva Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. The writ petition is filed impeaching the proposal of the responden bank (the secured creditor), to sell the house property belonging to th petitioners bearing house No.10-45-24/E, Kacherimitta, Kavali, Nellor district. The secured creditor issued a notice dated 30-05-2009 calling fo tenders for sale of the scheduled property of a plinth area of 1075 squar feet built on an extent of Ac.0.02 cents standing in the name of the firs petitioner. The petitioners admit to have obtained a personal loan of Rs.1.5 lak in February 2004 and a further sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs in August 2004 unde mortgage of their properties, from the secured creditor. They claimed t have paid the loan amounts in some instalments and to have defaulted i payment of instalments, on account of the certain personal circumstances In para.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner assert, that suddenly the secured creditor issued the impugned notic dated 30-05-2009; that certain collection agents of the secured credito demanded the petitioners to vacate the property and obtained a lette forcibly from the petitioners promising to vacate the property and hand ove the keys by 05-07-2009. In the circumstances, the writ petition is filed. The respondent-secured creditor has filed a counter-affidavit dated 12 10-2009. In the counter, it is specifically asserted that the petitioner availed a loan of Rs.2.50 lakhs and created a mortgage of the schedule property. They defaulted in payment of the instalments and the accoun was classified as a “non-performing asset” (NPA) as per RBI guidelines Consequently, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation an Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 for short “ the 2002 Act”) dated 15-12-2007 was issued demanding paymen of Rs.2,91,576/- ( the dues as on 30-11-2007) within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the notice, failing which it was informed tha the bank would proceed further under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act. It i specifically pleaded that the petitioners received the notice an acknowledged the same but have failed to repay the amount due an demanded by the bank. Consequently, the bank issued a possessio notice dated 03.03.2008 served on both the petitioners and had take constructive possession of the property. Thereafter, on 18-03-2008 th bank issued a notice under Rule 8(6) of the Rules offering 30 days time t the petitioners for redemption of the mortgaged property as per law. As th petitioners defaulted on this opportunity as well, by the impugned notic dated 30-05-2009, the secured creditor called for tenders from intendin bidders for purchase of the property and scheduled opening of the seale tenders to 08-07-2009. On coming to learn of the tender notification, th petitioners addressed a letter dated 26-09-2009 seeking ten (10) days tim for repayment of the amount due to the bank failing which the propert would be handed over to the bank. Despite the letter, the petitioners faile to repay the amount due and filed this writ petition making false an baseless allegations, is the averment of the respondent-secured creditor. In a reply affidavit filed to the respondent’s counter-affidavit, th petitioners contend that defaulting on the loan instalments is neither wilfu nor wanton but on account of circumstances beyond the petitioners control, viz., the family circumstances detailed in the affidavit filed i support of the writ petition. The petitioners further contend that i compliance with the interim orders of this court, they have paid Rs.50,000 on 21-07-2009 and another amount of Rs.50,000/- on 20-08-2009. Th petitioners also state to have in all paid Rs.2 lakhs but assert that the firs petitioner is working as a Teacher in the Municipal High School, Kava and is not being paid salary due to non-release of the budget in time an that salary is being paid once in two or three months. Since April 200 though there is an improvement in the payment of salaries, yet salaries ar being paid after considerable delay. The 2nd petitioner i stated to be similarly circumstanced in the matter of delayed payments o salary. She is employed as a Balawadi Teacher. From the pleadings in the writ petition, in the counter-affidavit and th reply affidavit, it is clear that there is an admission of default by th petitioners in the repayment of the amounts due to the secured creditor Once there is a default, the provisions of the 2002 Act enable the secure creditor to proceed under the provisions of the 2002 Act after determinin the account as NPA in accordance with RBI guidelines. The counte affidavit of the bank clearly asserts that the petitioners’ loan account ha been classified as NPA strictly in accordance with the norms issued by th RBI regarding assets classification. There is no demurral by the petitioner to this assertion by the secured creditor. In the circumstances, the initiatio of proceedings under the 2002 Act suffers from no infirmity warrantin interference. As the petitioners have mortgaged their properties, th scheduled property is a secured asset and there is a default admitte legitimising the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor. On the analyses above, this court discerns no infirmity in th proceedings initiated leading to the impugned tender notification dated 30 05-2009, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of th Constitution of India. There are no merits. Sri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the respondent-secured creditor fo rescheduling of the terms of the repayment or for a sympatheti consideration of their case having regard to their personal circumstances No permission by this court is required for the petitioners to subm representations to the respondent. The bank is a public authority and th petitioners as citizens and as customers of the bank have always th liberty to approach the respondent-bank for any negotiations or to see restructuring of their loan. In this case, the court is concerned only with th validity of the proceedings initiated by the bank, which are impeached i this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 26th APRIL 2010. TSNR