MANGALAGIRI TEXTILE MILLS PVT LTD Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(APH)-2022-2-15
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 18,2022

Mangalagiri Textile Mills Pvt Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO V. GORDON GRANT AND CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
NEVILLE V. LONDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD NOOH [REFERRED TO]
THANSINGH NATHMAL ONKARMAL JAWALAPRASAD INDRACHAND PREMSUCH RAMDEO SATYANARAYAN INDRACHAND PREMSUCH SHEWPRATAP TANTIA VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN [REFERRED TO]
BABURAM PRAKASH CHANDRA MAHESHWARI VS. ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD NOW ZILA PARISHAD MUZAFFAMAGAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. INDIAN HUME PIPE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
T V USMAN VS. FOOD INSPECTOR TELLICHERRY MUNICIPALITY TELLICHERRY [REFERRED TO]
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VS. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. O C KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
HARBANSLAL SAHNIA VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NASIRUDDIN VS. SITA RAM AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
P T RAJAN VS. T P M SAHIR [REFERRED TO]
C C T ORISSA VS. INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LTD [REFERRED TO]
CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. DOSU AARDESHIR BHIWANDIWALA [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR SHIVHARE VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT [REFERRED TO]
MODERN INDUSTRIES VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON [REFERRED TO]
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGAR VS. INTERNATIONAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA CHESS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
C. BRIGHT VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. T. Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned counsel for the respondents - State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'SBI').
(2.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioners assail the action(s) taken by the SBI under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') alleging violation of the procedure prescribed therein as well as non- conformity with The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').
(3.) The factual matrix may first be adverted to. The petitioners obtained loan from the SBI. The account having become a Non-Performing Asset (hereinafter referred to as 'NPA'), the petitioners applied for One-Time Settlement (hereinafter referred to as 'OTS'), whereunder the total amount to be paid was Rs.10,36,25,840.82. The application money of Rs.52,00,000.00 was paid and SBI also issued sanction letter dtd. 23/11/2020. Though as per the terms of OTS, the first instalment to be paid was Rs.1.04 crores by 23/12/2020, the petitioners paid only Rs.32,00,000.00 on 23/12/2020. As a consequence, SBI issued letter dtd. 29/12/2020 informing cancellation of OTS and asking the petitioners to deposit the entire Bank dues with interest at contracted rate. The request of the petitioners by letter dtd. 3/1/2021 for extension of time for payment of balance amount of first instalment of Rs.72,00,000.00 was rejected by the SBI vide letter dtd. 21/1/2021. The same is pending challenge in W.P.No.2512 of 2021, before this Court. As the petitioners had defaulted, the SBI, prior to sanctioning OTS, on 27/2/2019 had already moved before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the 'CMM'), Guntur, in Crl.M.P. No.201 of 2019, under Sec. 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the secured asset/property, in which the following order was made on 28/12/2020: "The petition is filed under Sec. 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the petition schedule property and to deliver the possession to the petitioner bank. Heard and perused the record. It seems that the petitioner bank followed the procedure contemplated under the Act to proceed against the mortgaged property for realization of loan amount due to the petitioner bank. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed. In the result, the petition is allowed. Sri K. Veera Bhaskar, Sri P. Koteswara Rao, Sri/Smt. V. Sreelatha, Sri/Smt. J. Rama Lakshmi, Advocates are appointed as Commissioners to take possession of the petition schedule property and to deliver the possession to the petitioner bank. Their fee are fixed at Rs.10,000.00 each payable by the petitioner bank. The Commissioner shall issue notice to both parties and advocates on record before execution of warrant. Commissioner is at liberty to break open the schedule for execution of warrant with aid of police when ever required. Warrant returnable with Report by 15/2/2021. Warrant shall be issued on payment of commissioner fee and process on or before on 4/1/2021"' ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.