Kalneedi Venkateswara Rao, v. The Andhra Bank

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE GUDI SEVA SHYAM PRASAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.25837 of 2016 ORDER: (Per Justice Sanjay Kumar) This writ petition was filed assailing the order dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, in exercise of power under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'), directing delivery of possession of the secured asset to the Andhra Bank.

When this matter was taken up for hearing on admission on 03.08.2016, this Court observed that this writ petition would not have been entertained ordinarily in view of the alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act but considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client was prepared to pay the due amount if reasonable time was allowed, this Court ordered notice and granted stay of all further measures, including taking over of the physical possession of the secured asset, subject to the petitioner paying into his loan account a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- within two weeks. Smt. V. Dyumani, learned counsel for the Andhra Bank, would point out that after the passing of the aforestated order, the petitioner deposited only a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of his loan account.

Though Memo dated 13.09.2016 was filed by the petitioner claiming to have paid various other amounts, Smt. V. Dyumani, learned counsel, would point out that all the sums mentioned therein, except for the sum of Rs.50,000/-, were paid by the petitioner prior to the passing of the interim order.

That being so, we are of the opinion that the petitioner secured stay of all further proceedings by holding out a false promise that he would pay the entire amount due to the Andhra Bank if given sufficient time. Significantly, the order dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, reflects that the default complained of was to the tune of Rs.5,75,340.50 ps. However, the petitioner failed to live up to the order passed by this Court which only required him to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- within two weeks from the date of the order.

We are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner is utterly lacking in bonafides and secured an interim order from this Court by resorting to subterfuge.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Interim order dated 03.08.2016 shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

_____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J ________________________ GUDI SEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J 7th July, 2017 IBL