Telangana High Court
Sri. Shaik Mehaboob Pasha vs Union Bank Of India on 24 March, 2022
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
And
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE S.NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.15242 OF 2022
ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Ms.P. Hamsa Durga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Chakrala Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent - Union Bank of India.
2 By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of notice dated 11.03.2022 issued by the advocate commissioner calling upon the petitioner to vacate the schedule property and to handover vacant physical possession thereof to the advocate commissioner within 15 days. 3 It appears that petitioner had availed loan from the respondent but defaulted in repayment for which respondent has initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly 'the SARFAESI Act' hereinafter). As a consequence, possession notice was issued on 25.10.2021 as per which the outstanding dues of the petitioner have been quantified at Rs.43,05,711-73. Against the impugned possession notice petitioner has filed securitization application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Hyderabad (Tribunal) which has been numbered as S.A (IR) No.340 of 2022.
4 With the grievance that presently there is no presiding officer in the Tribunal, rendering the same non-functional, present writ petition has been filed.
5 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that since petitioner has already availed his statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, it would be just and proper if the petitioner pursues his remedy before the appropriate forum. Further, if the petitioner deposits 15% of the outstanding dues as mentioned above within a period of 30 days from today, respondent shall not take further steps pursuant to the notice dated 11.03.2022 issued by the advocate commissioner. However, if there is any default on the part of the petitioner in making the payment as above, it would be open to the respondent to take necessary steps for realisation of the outstanding dues in accordance with law. 6 This disposes of the writ petition. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
_______________ S. NANDA, J.
Dt: 24.03.2022 Kvsn