THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 3852 of 2010 23-03-2010 BETWEEN; Jayakar Daniel Erapula and another ...Petitioners vs. HDFC Bank Limited, Secunderabad rep. by its authorised signatory ...Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.3852 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The initiation and pursuit of processes under the provisions of th Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement o Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the 2002 Act”) by the responden secured creditor against the petitioners is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioners obtained a loan from the Centurion Bank of Punja Limited, Hyderabad (subsequently amalgamated with the respondent) fo purchase of house property. An amount of Rs.1,02,00,000/- was availed b the petitioners. The house bearing municipal No.39-67, Vayupur Sainikpuri, Secunderabad was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 02-12-2006. This property was mortgaged with the responden towards security for repayment of the loan amount. The petitioners admittedly defaulted on payment of the Equate Monthly Instalments (EMIs) and presumptively on an assessment an determination that the debt had become non-performing asset, th respondent initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act an issued a notice under Section 13(3) of the 2002 Act to the petitioners. Th petitioners claim to have orally represented to the respondent about the financial constraints and sought time. Eventually, however, by an orde dated 20.02.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2010, the Chief Metropolita Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad, in purported exercise of powers unde Section 14 of the 2002 Act, directed for taking possession of the secure asset. The learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously contend tha as the petitioners had defaulted only two (2) EMIs and had been regularl paying all the earlier and subsequent EMIs, the debt could not have bee validly assessed and determined as a non-performing asset, whic determination is a condition precedent for initiation and pursuit o processes under the provisions of the 2002 Act. The learned counsel fo the petitioners would, however, not place before this Court for it consideration any principle, rule, regulation or guidelines issued by th Reserve Bank, on the basis of which the presumptive determination by th respondent-secured creditor that the debt has become non-performin asset, which determination is the substratum for initiation of th proceedings under the proceedings of the Act, could be faulted o interdicted in judicial review. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits. The writ petition i accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 23rd MARCH 2010. TSNR