IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD 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. 27020 of 2007 Between: G.Satyanarayana S/o.Appalaswamy M/s.Lakshmi Mini Modern Rice Mill 22-1-55, Yadla Bazar, Gorrelavari street Palakol,. West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Palakol Branch, West Godavari District, rep.by its Branch Manager 2 The Authorised officer, The Karur Vysya Bank Limited Divisonal officer, Gayatri Nilayam, 38-8-46, Labbipet, M.G.Road Vijayawada .....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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by issuing notice dated 18.10.2007 and consequential Possession Notice dated 5.12.2007 for taking possession of the charged property is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27020 of 2007 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notice dated 18.10.2007 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and possession notice dated 05.12.2007 under Section 13(4) for taking possession of the charged property as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the first respondent-bank towards working capital and deposited title deeds of the properties owned by him. He failed to repay the loan amount. Therefore, the first respondent-bank filed a suit in O.S.No.199 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram. The suit was decreed on 27.07.2007 granting three months time to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,17,118/- @ 6% from the date of suit till realization. The petitioner states that even before the expiry of the three months period to deposit Rs.8,17,118/- at 6% interest, the first respondent-bank issued notice dated 18.10.2007 under Section 13(2) to pay an amount of Rs.16,66,793/- and possession notice dated 05.12.2007 for taking possession of the property in question. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent-bank is bound by the decree and has to initiate proceedings only after expiry of the three months period stipulated in the decree and cannot resort to take action under the provisions of the Act. Counter affidavit is filed stating that the first respondent- bank has got power to proceed against the borrower in case of failure to repay the secured debt and as per the decree, the amount was calculated from the date of suit i.e. from 03.02.2002 to 18.10.2007 i.e. till the date of issuance of notice, which comes to Rs.16,66,793/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the decree passed by the Civil Court has attained finality, the first respondent-bank is bound to effect recovery only to the extent the decree had attained finality and they cannot recover the amount according to their whims and fancies. Learned counsel for the first respondent-bank contended that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Transcore vs. Union of India[1], the bank is at liberty to invoke the provisions of the Act if the amount as directed by the bank under Section 13(2) of the Act is not paid. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.12.2007, the petitioner had deposited Rs.1,00,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner had deposited a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent-bank within two weeks from today and on such a representation being made, the first respondent-bank shall consider and pass orders and communicate its decision to the petitioner. The petitioner shall pay the outstanding amount within three months thereafter. However, the amount deposited shall be given credit to. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt:23-06-2009 Note:Furnish copy within one week usd [1] 2006(12) scale 585