Telangana High Court
Bandla Ganesh Babu vs The Union Bank Of India on 15 December, 2021
Author: P.Madhavi Devi
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No.33851 OF 2021
ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) 1 By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of possession notice dated 09.10.2019 issued by the respondent - Union Bank of India as well as the notice of vacation dated 30.11.2021 issued by the Advocate Commissioner.
2 Parameswara Poultry Farm Private Limited had availed financial assistance of Rs.83,16,00,000-00 from the erstwhile Andhra Bank, which has since been merged with Union Bank of India i.e. respondent. Petitioners stood as personal guarantors for such loan and offered their immovable properties as collateral security.
3 Parameswara Poultry Farm Private Limited (company) is presently facing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The said company is now being managed by an Interim Resolution Professional.
4 It is stated that because of financial crisis, the company sought for restructuring of the loan and proposed One Time Settlement (OTS).
5 According to the petitioners, respondent - Union Bank of India had accepted the OTS scheme for an amount of Rs.70,00,00,000-00, vide letter dated 13.11.2019. Because of 2 the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant lockdown, the company could not make the payment. Therefore, it sought for extension of time to comply with the OTS scheme. Time was extended, but only till 30.05.2021. Thereafter the OTS scheme was cancelled, vide letter dated 02.06.2021. At that stage petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petition No.13284 of 2021. This Court by order dated 30.6.2021, took the view that cancellation of OTS scheme by the respondent - Union Bank of India was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, such cancellation was set aside. Petitioners were directed to submit fresh representation to the respondent - Union Bank of India within two weeks and the respondent - Union Bank of India was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order(s) in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It appears that petitioners submitted fresh representations on 26.07.2021 and 27.07.2021. By communication dated 20.11.2021, respondent - Union Bank of India informed the petitioners that their stand of paying balance OTS amount only after successful negotiations with three non- banking financial companies was not acceptable. It was pointed out that as no concrete action plan for payment of balance OTS amount along with interest for the delayed period was not provided, proposal of the petitioners for extension of timeline was returned. Thereafter, Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 30.11.2021 to the petitioners to vacate the premises. It is 3 at this stage that the present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7 We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition for more than one reason. Firstly, it is evident that respondent - Union Bank of India has invoked provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'SARFAESI Act'). Petitioners have themselves admitted in paragraph No.3 of the supporting affidavit that against such action, they have filed Securitization Application before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, we find that possession notice was issued way back on 09.10.2019, whereas, the Securitization Application was filed only in the year 2021 after the notice to vacate the premises was issued on 30.11.2021. As per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the limitation period for filing such application is 45 days.
8 Secondly, after this Court had remanded the matter back to respondent - Union Bank of India to reconsider the OTS scheme, the same was considered. But, as it was found that petitioners did not provide any concrete action plan for payment of balance OTS amount along with interest for the delayed payment, the proposal seeking extension of timeline was 4 returned back to the petitioners. It was thereafter that the impugned notice to vacate was issued on 30.11.2021. 9 In the circumstances as noticed above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
10 That being the position, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall also stand dismissed.
____________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, J ______________________ P.MADHAVI DEVI, J Date: 15.12.2021.
Kvsn