Mrs. Bathineni Ramadevi vs The Prl.Secretary,
2021 Latest Caselaw 5428 AP

     HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI


      HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
                          AND
         HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI


               WRIT PETITION No.30243 OF 2021



   1. Mrs Bathineni Ramadevi
      W/o Srinivasa Rao Flat No G1 Ground Floor Elite Towers Plot No 9
      Ram Nagar 1st Line
      Annavarappadu
      Ongole, Prakasam District 523001 AP

   2. Mr Bathineni Kishore Babu
      S/o Srinivasa Rao Flat No G1
      Ground Floor Elite Towers
      Plot No 9 Ram Nagar 1st Line
      Annavarappadu Ongole
      Prakasam District 523001 AP
                                          ...            Petitioners

                                 Versus

   1. The Prl Secretary
      Ministry of Finance Union of India Department of Economic Affairs
      Room No 34C New Delhi

   2. State Bank of India
      Rep By its Authorized Officer Town Branch Ongole Prakasam District

                                          ...          Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. G. V. S. Kishore Kumar, Advocate

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. N. Harinath, Assistant Solicitor General

ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22.12.2021

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)

Heard Mr. G. V. S. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor

General, for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court against the notice for

sale issued under Rule 8(5) and (6) of Security Interest

(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 dated 03.12.2021 with regard to the

secured asset belonging to the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to

Covid-19 as the repayment schedule could not be adhered to, the

account became N.P.A and the Bank has taken recourse to

provisions of the SARFAESI Act but the procedure prescribed is

not valid. It is submitted that the petitioners are ready to repay

the amount after restructuring and they would pay the

difference amount to make the account active.

4. When the Court called upon learned counsel to disclose as

to what amount the petitioners are ready to pay upfront to show

their bona fide, learned counsel submitted that they would pay

10%.

5. The Court finds such offer to be too low. The petitioners

were aware of the conditions of such sanction and if there has

been breach of such condition relating to repayment, the agency,

being a financial institution can take recourse to the provisions

of the SARFAESI Act. Further, the Court would not issue any

direction to the lending agency with regard to any restructuring,

which has to be done by the agency concerned as per the scheme

and the Court would not interfere in the same.

6. For reasons aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to interfere

in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed

of. However, it is open to the petitioners to approach the State

Bank of India with regard to any scheme or offer they may have

for reviving of the loan or for making payment of the amount

due, which shall be considered on its own merits without being

prejudiced by the present order.

7. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending also, stand disposed

of.

________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,J)

________________________ (B. S. BHANUMATHI,J)

Note:

C.C. on 24.12.2021 B/o.

Pab

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI

WRIT PETITION No.30243 OF 2021

Date : 22-12-2021

Pab