ROHINI FOOTWEARS Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 20579 of 2010 is filed to declare the action of the respondents in proceeding to take possession of the secured assets of the petitioners having obtained orders from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short 'the Act') without considering the representation of the petitioner therein and without issuing any notice to them under Section 13(2) or Section 13(4) of the Act respectively as illegal and arbitrary and also direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the secured assets respectively. Writ Petition No. 14487 of 2011 is filed to declare the action of the respondents to take possession of the secured assets of the petitioners having obtained orders from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 14 of the Act, without considering the representation of the petitioner therein, pursuant to the issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and without issuing any notice to them under Section 13(4) of the Act respectively, as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the secured assets respectively.

(2.) The background facts which lead to the filing of the writ petitions are as follows:

(3.) The petitioners in W. P. No. 14487 of 2011, in order to purchase a residential flat, obtained housing loan from HDFC Bank at Basheerbagh for Rs. 6,00,000/- which was scheduled to be paid in 180 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 7,539/- each per month and created secured asset of the same property for the repayment of the loan. However, on persuasion and assurance of the respondent Bank, the petitioners approached and were sanctioned a loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- payable together with interest in monthly equal instalments @ Rs. 9,945/- per month by the respondent Bank. An amount of Rs. 6,06,453/- was disbursed to the petitioner by the respondent Bank consequently. Thereby the account of HDFC Bank was foreclosed. The respondent Bank on the ground that the account became NPA issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 16.2.2006 demanding the petitioners to pay Rs. 8,18,162/- within a period of sixty days. However, the respondent Bank issued another notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 9.12.2010 itself to the petitioners claiming Rs. 20,76,862/-. The said amounts were claimed against the total sanctioned amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-even though only Rs. 6,06,453/- was disbursed out of it. Thereafter, the petitioners made representation to the Respondent Bank under Section 13(3A) of the Act, which was not considered. However, consequently steps were taken by the respondent Bank to take possession of the property invoking Section 14 of the Act vide order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad dated 20.4.2011. Further, Advocate Commissioner was appointed to dispossess the petitioners from the residential flat, following which the Advocate Commissioner went and issued notice dated 18.5.2011 to comply with the order, thereby the writ petition has been filed. The petitioners herein mainly contend that without issuing notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, the respondent Bank is taking steps to dispossess them from the secured asset having obtained order dated 20.4.2011 under Section 14 of the Act. The petitioners question the issuance of notice dated 16.3.2006 and 9.12.2010 under Section 13(2) of the Act for the entire sanctioned amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- and also excess amount claimed in the second notice. Thereby this writ petition is filed assailing the order passed under Section 14 of the Act and also the steps being taken to dispossess them from the secured asset with a request to direct the respondents not to dispossess them from the secured asset.