Disposed

M.Venkata Reddy v. Canara Bank

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2019WP/12803/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a bank-initiated property auction under the SARFAESI Act for encroaching on the petitioner's title, the High Court ruled that factual title issues must be decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The court disposed of the petition but granted a stay on confirming the auction sale for two weeks. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal, failing which

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed reserving liberty to approach the Tribunal for two weeks. Confirmation of sale stayed for two weeks if auction proceeds.

M.Venkata Reddy Vs Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

MSRM,J & JUD,J W.P.No.12803 of 2019 04.09.2019

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.12803 of 2019

¶7

ORDER : (Per Honourable Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti)

¶8

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed

¶9

by the petitioner seeking verbatim the following relief:

¶10

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Auction Publication, dated 20.07.2019 issued by the Respondents 1 and 2 thereby inviting the prospective bidders for participating in Auction Sale that would be conducted on 05.09.2019 for selling petitioner’s House bearing no.2-415/A/21 with built up area of 2244 square feet stands on open site admeasuring an extent of 278-66 square yards in survey no.175/2 situated at Plot no.9, Cooperative Society Colony, Near Sri Devi Hospital, Opp: Kumarapuram Municipal School, B.K.Palli, Madanapally, Chittoor District without ascertaining the title and saleable interest with respect to Auction Schedule Premises as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and pass appropriate orders….”

¶11

At the stage of admission, we have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material record.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:

¶13

‘The petitioner is a third party to the loan transaction between the bank on the one hand and the borrowers and the guarantors on the other hand. The petitioner inherited the property, which is mortgaged by the principal debtor and the guarantors, while obtaining a loan from the bank. The principal borrower, having obtaining loan by mortgaging the property in which the petitioner has interest, failed to pay the amount due to the bank and therefore, the bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and

¶14

MSRM,J & JUD,J W.P.No.12803 of 2019 04.09.2019

¶15

¶16

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) intending to auction the subject property on 05.09.2019. The said property is a dwelling house. The bank has not enquired about the third party’s title and saleable interest in the property either before advancing the loan or putting the property to auction. Hence, the present writ petition.’

¶17

We have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions. Since the petitioner in this writ petition raises an issue of title to the property, we are of the considered view that the said issue of fact need not be decided in this writ petition as a writ Court will not generally resolve the factual issues. Therefore, in our considered view, it is for the petitioner, if he so desires, to approach the Tribunal and seek remedies, which the law permits.

¶18

However, when this Court is not inclined to admit the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner sought protection for a limited period to enable the petitioner to approach the Tribunal or an appropriate forum and seeks remedies, which the law permits.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach either the Tribunal or any other appropriate forum and seek remedies, which the law permits, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that in the event, the auction is held successfully on 05.09.2019 by respondent nos.1 and 2 in respect of the subject dwelling house, they shall not confirm the sale in favour of the successful bidder until a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further made clear that on the failure of the petitioner to avail the liberty now sought for and granted by this Court, the protection, now granted, shall stand

¶20

MSRM,J & JUD,J W.P.No.12803 of 2019 04.09.2019

¶21

¶22

automatically vacated and the bank shall be at liberty to proceed further in

¶23

the matter in strict accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶24

_________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶25

_____________ J.UMA DEVI, J

¶26

Note: Issue C.C. by 09.09.2019.

¶27

(B/o)

¶28

GHN

M.Venkata Reddy v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Venkata Reddy v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bheemavarapu Madhusudhana Rao Vs The Authorised Officer

P. Mary John Vs M/S Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

DakkumallaJapamma, Vs State Bank of India

D Jayaprakash Vs M Radhika

Syed Irfan, Vs Authorized Officer

M/s.Sri Chakra Eden Greens Projects Private Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer