M/S Endura Controls And Automation Pvt Ltd ( Ecapl) v. The State Bank Of India Stressed Assests Management Branch

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy and The Hon'ble Sri Justice G.Shyam Prasad Writ Petition No.24648 of 2016 Date: 27.07.2016 Between:

M/s.Endura Controls & Automation Pvt. Ltd., rep. by Managing Director Smt.K.Bhanu Sree and 4 others ..Petitioners and The State Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch rep. by its Asst. General Manager and 3 others ..Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.S.Sreenivasa Sarma The Court made the following:

Order: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed by the debtors in a loan transaction with respondent No.1. The petitioners have furnished immovable property security by way of mortgage in favour of

respondent No.1 to secure the loan. As the petitioners failed to repay the amounts due as per the arrangement between them, respondent No.1 was constrained to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the 1993 Act'). Simultaneously, respondent No.2 has also issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the 2002 Act'). After filing of the OA, respondent No.1 has assigned the debt to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The assignees have continued the proceedings under the 2002 Act from the stage where respondent No.1 has left by issuing possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act on 11.02.2016. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has issued a notice of auctioncum-sale of the secured asset on 22.06.2016 by fixing '28.07.2016 at 3.00 p.m.,' therefor. The petitioners assailed the said notice by filing this Writ Petition.

The only point that is urged by Mr.S.Srinivasa Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the hearing, is that having filed OA.No.989 of 2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the 1993 Act, the respondents ought to have pursued the said remedy instead of initiating the proceedings under the 2002 Act. We do not find any merit in the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Under Section 37 of the 2002 Act, the provisions of the said Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the various enactments mentioned therein including the 1993 Act. Therefore, if respondent No.1 has initiated the proceedings under the said Act for recovery of the amount due, that does not bar its assignee to invoke the provisions of the 2002 Act.

For the afore-mentioned reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned sale-cum-auction notice.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.30443 of 2016, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) _________________ (G.Shyam Prasad, J) Dt: 27th July, 2016 lur