Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Yes Mart Home Appliances, vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI
WRIT PETITION No. 1907 of 2022
1. M/s. YES MART HOME APPLIANCES,
Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr Shaik Kareemullah,
S/o. late Shaik Mastan, Aged about 42 years,
Occ: Business, Shop No. 12 and 13, Bapuji Market Complex,
Ongole 523 001, Prakasam District.
2. Mr. Syed Quamruddin,
S/o. Syed Fakruddin, Aged about 46 years,
Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.3, Highway Colony,
Chintalakunta, Check Post, L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad- 500 074.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.
2. Reserve Bank of India,
Rep by its Regional Director, Fort Glacis No.16,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.
3. Authorized Officer/The Chief Manager,
Canara Bank, Ongole 13640 Branch.
4. The Zonal Manager,
Canara Bank, Ongole (13640) Branch.
5. The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank, Ongole (13640) Branch.
.... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. S. M. Subhani, Advocate
Representing Mr. G. Suryam
Advocate.
Counsel for the respondent no.1 : Mr. N. Harinath,
Assistant Solicitor General
Counsel for the respondent no.2 : ---
Counsel for the respondents no.3 to 5: Mr. B. Hanumantha Rao,
Advocate.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 28.01.2022
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanllah)
Heard Mr. S. M. Subhani, learned counsel representing
Mr. G. Suryam, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. B. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents no.3 to
5 (Canara Bank).
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief:
" .... to issue a Writ order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
the impugned auction notice issued by the 3rd respondent
under Rule 8(6) and (9) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and
published in the District Edition Enadu Telugu Daily
Newspaper on 05.01.2022 inter alia inviting the general
public for the sale of Asset Nos.1 and 2 i.e., (1) to an extent
of 350 square yards or equivalent to 292.63 square meters
situated at Door No.11-14-156/1 in Plot No.4 and 5,
Srinagar Colony, Saroornagar Village and Mandal,
L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and (2) a
residential building constructed in an extent of 235 square
yards in Plot No.4 at survey No.56/1, Chintalakunta Village,
Mansoorabad Grampanchayat, Hayathnagar Revenue
Mandal, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District as
shown in the auction notice scheduled to be held on
29.01.2022 is being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
in violation of the provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002 and
pass ......"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though
One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme was allowed to petitioners, but
due to circumstances beyond their control, the terms could not be
complied with and they defaulted in payment as per the time
schedule. However, it was submitted that the petitioners have now
complied with the terms.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank submitted that the
petitioner has defaulted in payment and thus the OTS was recalled
and now the petitioners have to repay the entire outstanding due
amount which would be more than Rs.3.07 crores to the bank.
5. At this juncture, on a query by the Court to learned counsel
for the petitioners that how much amount they are ready to pay
upfront to show their bona fide in view of the fact that already the
secured asset is scheduled to be auctioned tomorrow, Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioners would pay Rs.50,00,000/-
(Rupees fifty lakhs) within three weeks.
6. This Court does not find the offer to be reasonable in the
background that OTS was allowed in favour of the petitioners on very
relaxed terms, but still they failed to repay the outstanding amount
and thus in the changed circumstances, the intention of the
petitioners to repay the outstanding due amount is not visible from
their conduct. Accordingly, the offer on behalf of the petitioners does
not inspire confidence.
7. Moreover, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for
the respondent-Bank, once the petitioners committed defaulted in
payment of OTS, there cannot be any question of reviving the OTS
scheme or making payment in terms thereof, which is now a closed
chapter.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Court does not find any
ground to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed. However, it shall be open to the parties to settle the issue.
No order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, also stand
disposed of.
________________________________
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)
_______________________
(B. S. BHANUMATHI, J)
Mjl/*
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI
WRIT PETITION No. 1907 2022
28.01.2022
Mjl/*
