IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 25118 of 2006 Between: B.Venkat Reddy, S/o. B.Narayan Reddy, R/o.H.No.10-405, Plot No.27, Sattireddy Nagar Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank,Moulali Branch, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ,order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in taking coercive steps against the petitioner for taking possession/sale of my residential house bearing No.10-405(constructed on plot No.27 in Sy.Nos.631,683,685,686&687), admeasuring 240 sq.yards, situated at Sattireddy Nagar Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad without due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and principles of natural justice and consequentially declare that the Respondent's action is contrary to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act,2002 and Security interest (Enforcement)Rules,2002 and also contrary to the provisions contained under section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ANIL KUMAR MAGANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.KRISHNAM RAJU The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.25118 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in taking coercive steps against the petitioner for taking possession /sale of his residential house bearing No.10-405 (constructed on Plot No.27 in Survey Nos. 631, 683, 685, 686 & 687), admeasuring 240 square yards situated at Sattireddy Nagar Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderrabad, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner availed the term loan in the name of M/s.B.V.R.Industries, in the year 1998 creating equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds with the respondent bank. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to pay the instalments as per the terms and condition of the loan agreement and the amount due in the said loan account became over due and it is classified as “non-performing assets” as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The respondent bank has issued a notice dated 25.11.2002 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short ‘the Act’) to the petitioner. The petitioner has neither paid the loan amount nor did he give any reply to the said notice. Thereafter, the respondent bank issued a possession notice dated 3.11.2004 to the petitioner and he acknowledged the same and the respondent bank has taken symbolic possession of the mortgaged property. As the petitioner addressed a letter dated 3.11.2004 expressing his willingness to settle the account under one time settlement, the respondent bank did not proceed further to realize the loan amount by sale of the mortgaged property. However, the petitioner did not come forward to pay the loan amount. As such, the respondent filed an application under Section 14 of the Act and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate appointed Ms.Madhavi Lata as an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the mortgaged property. Accordingly, on 29.11.2006, the Advocate Commissioner along with bank officials went to the petitioner’s house to take possession of the property, but the petitioner requested the bank officials to grant some time to pay the loan amount. Believing the version of the petitioner, the bank has deferred the steps for taking possession of the property. In the meanwhile the respondent bank has also filed application in O.A.No.109 of 2006 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad and the same is pending. 3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. It is seen that the petitioner committed default in payment of monthly instalments towards loan amount. When the petitioner failed to repay the instalments, the respondent bank is entitled to recover the entire loan amount at once. The respondent bank has given ample opportunity to the petitioner to repay the loan amount, but he failed to avail the same. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent bank cannot invoke the provisions of the Act when the O.A. is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, cannot be sustained as there is no embargo on the respondent bank to initiate parallel proceedings against the petitioner to recover the loan amount. The respondent bank has followed the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act to recover the loan amount. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amount against the petitioner. 4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 19-06-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}