HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No. 750 of 2014 Dated: 04.06.2014 Between:
M/s.Valluramma Raw & Par Boiled Rice Mill, APIIC Growth Centre, Rep. by its Managing Partner …..Petitioner And State Bank of India, SME Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager 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. 750 of 2014 ORDER : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the e-auction sale notification dated 07.12.2013 published on 08.12.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner availed loan facility from the 1st respondent for an amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- towards term loan for purchasing machinery and another amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- towards cash credit facility. The petitioner also executed necessary documents and mortgaged properties for obtaining the aforesaid loans.
3. As the petitioner failed to repay the monthly installments within the stipulated time in terms of the agreement, the 1st respondent-Bank issued a notice to it under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’). Thereafter, notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner has submitted one time settlement (OTS) proposal to the respondents, which is still pending and hence as long as the decision is not taken on the OTS, the properties of the petitioner cannot be auctioned.
5. This Court by order dated 09.01.2014 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- within four weeks from the date of the said order and another sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- within four weeks thereafter.
6. As both the conditions were not complied with by the petitioner, the interim order dated 09.01.2014 was vacated on 10.03.2014.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy of filing of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and as the petitioner has not availed the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
8. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner can avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal. Moreover, the petitioner had also flouted the conditional order dated 09.01.2014 vide which, it was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- within four weeks and another sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- within four weeks thereafter.
9. In view of the above, we find no merits in this writ petition and the same is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Court for redressal of its grievance.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 4th June 2014. mar