Disposed

B.v.Ramana Babu v. M/s.Karur Vysya Bank Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Nov 2019WP/11598/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging an auction sale of property by a secured creditor. Finding the remedy of filing an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was available and the interim protection period had lapsed due to the issuance of the sale certificate, the Court set the petition aside on alternative grounds.

What the court decided

AI extract

B.v.Ramana Babu Vs M/s.Karur Vysya Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.11598 of 2019

¶5

ORDER: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai )

¶6

Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

¶7

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the sale of a residential property, bearing D.No.35, T.S.No.142/1, RMS colony, R.R.Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, in the auction conducted on 21.03.2019, pursuant to the sale notice, dated 27.02.2019, of the first respondent.

¶8

According to the petitioner, without adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the rules framed thereunder and without serving any notice on the petitioner, respondentbank authorities conducted the auction, as such, the said auction is liable to be set aside.

¶9

This Court, on 20.08.2019, while ordering notices to the respondents, in I.A.No.01 of 2019, passed an interim order, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the subject property till 24.09.2019, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lakhs

¶10

AVSS,J & MGR,J W.P.No11598 of 2019

¶11

¶12

only) on or before 24.09.2019, while making it clear that the said order will enure to the benefit of the petitioner in the event of not registering the sale certificates in favour of the auction purchasers.

¶13

Today, when the matter is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-bank that the sale certificates were issued in favour of the auction purchasers on 25.07.2019.

¶14

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the above, the amount, as directed by this Court, could not be deposited. Serious objection, as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, is also taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-bank by contending that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner herein under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act.

¶15

Under Section 17 of the Act, any person, including a borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in subSection (4) of Section 13 of the Act taken by the secured creditor may make an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction.

¶16

Having regard to the above provision of law, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, giving liberty to the petitioner herein to avail the above said alternative

¶17

AVSS,J & MGR,J W.P.No11598 of 2019

¶18

¶19

remedy, under Section 17 of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as the petitioner herein has been prosecuting the litigation before this Court for quite some time, and if any such application is filed, the same be considered and appropriate orders be passed, within a period of four weeks thereafter, strictly in accordance with law.

¶20

Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶23

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶24

05^th November, 2019 Tsy

B.v.Ramana Babu v. M/s.Karur Vysya Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

B.v.Ramana Babu v. M/s.Karur Vysya Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P S v S Kumar Vs Sri. Manmohan Singh

P Srinivasa Rao Vs K S Jawahar Reddy

T Anitha Vs T v S Prasad

Gadiparthi Penchalanarasaiah Vs the Special Deputy Collector (La)

G Munaswamy Vs sapthagiri grameena bank

Kantheti Venu Babu, Vs the Authorized Officer