HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No. 3978 of 2014 Dated: 28.04.2014 Between:
M/s.Shree Papers Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri Parvathaneni Kaleswara Rao …..Petitioner And The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Koti, Hyderabad and another.
....Respondents
The Court made the following :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No. 3978 of 2014 ORDER : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not passing the orders as per Section 13 (3-A) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), even though the petitioner submitted explanation to the demand notice dated 25.11.2013 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act issued by the 2nd respondent and going on with the publication of names in the Praja Shakti and Hans India newspapers on 10.02.2014, as illegal.
2. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.3624 of 2014 challenging the very same notice, which is challenged in this writ petition, and the same was dismissed on 10.02.2014 on the ground that the petitioner has got the right to file an appeal in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the demand notice dated 25.11.2013 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has filed his objections, but no orders have been passed thereon as contemplated under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. He further submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the amount under one time settlement with the respondent Bank, but the same is not being considered.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even in the earlier writ petition, this Court observed that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that as the petitioner has already been relegated to file an appeal by virtue of the orders passed in W.P.No.3624 of 2014, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. If so advised, the petitioner shall file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal raising all the point as have been raised in this writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 28th April 2014.
mar