G.V.Ramana v. Tirumala Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.39087 of 2018 05-11-2018 Between:

G.V. Ramana, S/o Prasada Rao, aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.11-12-366/2/G1, Plot No.A-6/1, Road No.6, Sri Ramakrishna Puram, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and another ... Petitioners Vs.

Tirumala Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., represented by its Authorised Office/Manager Mr. TSR Murthy, H.No.16-70-27/105, 1st floor, Tirumala Pride, Main Road, Opp: TMC Malakpet, Hyderabad ... Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Ch. Anjaneyulu Counsel for Respondents : None Appeared

VRS, J & JUD, J W.P.No.39087 of 2018 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.39087 of 2018 ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanaian, J) The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act, 2002).

2. Heard Mr. Ch. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad is dated 14-08-2018. The claim of the petitioner is that he had made certain payments, in February, March, September and October 2018 and that these payments are not taken into account.

4. But it is seen from the communication of the bank that a notice was issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act, 2002, on 21-08-2017 followed by a possession notice dated 27-112017. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have sent a cheque on 2711-2017 for Rs.30,400/-. This is why the respondent-bank seems to have approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

VRS, J & JUD, J W.P.No.39087 of 2018

5. In the light of the above, the appropriate course of action open to the petitioner is only to go before the Tribunal, where all these issues can be sorted out.

6. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to go before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J _____________ J. UMA DEVI, J Date: 05-11-2018 Ksn