HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 14851 of 2014 Date: 2.6..2014 Between :
Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar Branch, Hyderabad Rep by its Chief Manager … Petitioner and The Regional Director, South East Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Koti, Hyderabad and others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 14851 of 2014 ORAL ORDER:
Petitioner bank advanced short term working capital facility of Rs.200 crores on 11.11.2011 to third respondent for its business and disbursed the same after obtaining the security document from the third respondent on 11.11.2011 and its guarantors including creation of equitable mortgage by the third respondent on 10.11.2011 on certain movable properties. In terms of the agreements and also in accordance with the provision contained in Section 125 of the Companies Act, 1956, the third respondent is required to register the charge with the Registrar of Companies/second respondent in favour of the petitioner bank by filing Form No.8. The third respondent filed Form No.8 on 12.9.2012 with the second respondent, however, an objection was raised by the second respondent on the said Form No.8 and third respondent was asked to comply with the said objection. On 26.11.2012 third respondent filed an application for condonation of delay of 276 days in filing Form No.8. The application dated 12.9.2012 and the application for condonation of delay dated 26.11.2012 are pending consideration before the Regional Director, South East Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs/first respondent. The petitioner bank also filed Form No.8 application on 14.8.2012 but so far no orders are passed. The third respondent company committed default in paying the debts to the petitioner bank and petitioner bank was compelled to file O.A. No. 190 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and the same is pending.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since no orders are passed by the first respondent on the application filed by the third respondent as well as the petitioner bank, grave prejudice is caused in protecting the interest of the bank and there is every possibility of the properties being disposed of which would cause greater risk as huge amount is due to the petitioner bank. Learned counsel further submits that on similar application which was filed much later before the first respondent by another company, delay was condoned and appropriate orders were passed but insofar as the application of the petitioner bank is concerned, for no reasons, no orders are so far passed.
3. Having regard to the submissions made and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders as warranted by law on application filed in Form No.8 on 14.8.2012 by the petitioner bank and the application in Form No.8 filed by the third respondent bearing SR No.B57380875 dated 12.9.2012 along with condonation of delay application in Form No. 24 AAA dated 26.11.2012 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner bank.
4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any stand dismissed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:2.6.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 14851 of 2014 Date: 2.6.2014