IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 28763 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Shakti Constructions, H.No.15-53, Sri Kodandarama Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri. K.Suresh Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Authorized Official State Bank of Hyderabad, Dilsukhnagar Branch, H.No. 16-11-771/3, Moosarambagh Chowrastha, Near TV Towers, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 500036. 2 The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Dilsukhnagar Branch H.No. 16-11-771/3, Moosarambagh Chowrastha, Near TV Tower, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 500036. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice For Sale dated 13.12.2008 issued by the 1st respondent proposing to sell : (i) Land Admeasuring 4 acres and 4 guntas in Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District in survey No. 947/4. (ii) Open land bearing New No. 3-11-4/1 or old No. 4-102 admeasuring 1500 sq. yds situated at Shiva Ganga Colony, Mansoorabad village, Near Kamineni Hospitals. (iii) Plot No. 73(part), admeasuring 282 Sq. yds., Sy. No. 1,2,3 & 11 situated at Sahebnagar Khur, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District. (iv) Plot No. 73(part), admeasuring 282 sq, yds., Sy. No. 1,2,3 & 11 situated at Sahebnagar Khur, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District as being arbitrary, intimidating, illegal, unwarranted and discriminatory and is a clear violative of our fundamental rights guaranteed under the Articles 14, 19 & 21 as also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and of the Principles of Natural Justice and Consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.T.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.SIVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the Sale Notice dated 13-12-2008 issued by the first respondent for the sale of the notice schedule properties, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently set aside the same. 2. The petitioner herein is a registered Partnership Firm constituted with 4 partners for doing construction and real estate business. For the said business, the firm had availed the overdraft facility of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crores only) from the second respondent Bank in the month of September 2006. The petitioner firm has paid some amounts, initially, towards repayment of the loan to the second respondent Bank and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan amount. The first respondent Bank has issued notice dated 29-09- 2008 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) to repay the loan amount within a period of 60 days from the date of notice. The petitioner has given reply dated 17-10-2008 to the demand notice, explaining the reasons for non-payment of loan amount and requested for regularization of the loan account. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondent Bank issued a notice dated 06-12-2008 under Section 13(4) of the Act for taking possession of the notice schedule properties and accordingly took the possession of the same. Thereafter, the respondent Bank issued a sale notice dated 13-12-2009. The petitioner has given representation dated 22-12-2008 to the respondent Bank requesting to convert the due amounts as term loan and to pay the same in 60 equal monthly installments at Rs.6,94,200/- per month, commencing from April, 2009. Accordingly, the respondent Bank, issued a letter dated 21-04-2009 accepting the proposal of the petitioner subject to the submission of a) financial date, b) cash flow statement and c) letter offering consent decree, but the petitioner failed to honour his commitment made to the respondent Bank due to financial crisis. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the sale notice dated 13-12-2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not able to pay the loan amount to the respondent Bank due to financial crunch and pursuant the sale notice, the respondent Bank contemplating to sell away the mortgaged property on throw away price. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that since the petitioner committed default in repaying the loan amount, the loan account of the petitioner was converted into term loan by permitting to pay the same in 60 equal monthly installments at Rs.6,94,200/- per month and even then he failed to repay the loan amount and therefore, the respondent bank constrained to issue sale notice to sell the notice schedule properties for recovery of loan amount. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. This court, on 30-12-2008 while granting notice before admission in the writ petition, granted interim stay of all further proceedings on condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. Now the petitioner is prepared to pay the loan amount as agreed earlier i.e. in 60 equal monthly installments at Rs.6,94,200/- per month. It appears that the petitioner was not able to pay the loan amount in time due to financial crisis. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay the loan amount in 60 equal monthly installments at Rs.6,94,200/- per month commencing from August,2009 instead of April, 2009 subject to the terms and conditions in the letter dated 21-04-2009 of the respondent Bank. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay the accrued interest for the period from April, 2009 to July, 2009 which is said to be Rs.14,00,000/- on or before 10th August, 2009. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 22-07-2009 DSH/KK.