Dismissed

Yellapu Rama Rao v. the Debts Recovery Tribunal

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2019WP/2286/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging a Debts Recovery Tribunal order granting relief to a 2nd respondent was dismissed. The Court held that an effective alternative remedy exists under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The petition is disposed of, leaving the petitioner to file an appeal within 15 days, while the interim status quo is continued for two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; removed for alternative remedy under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act; interim order continued for two months or till stay application disposed.

Yellapu Rama Rao Vs the Debts Recovery Tribunal — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.2286 of 2019

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)

¶6

Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶7

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in S.A.No.44 of 2018.

¶8

The petitioner herein filed the above said Securitization Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, questioning the notice issued by the 2^nd respondent-institution under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2002’) and also for a declaration that the Gift Deed dated 24.02.2010 is fraudulent, invalid and inoperative. The Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of the impugned order, dismissed the Securitization Application filed by the petitioner.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the unofficial respondent No.5 herein, fraudulently obtained the gift deed and the same was admitted by the 5^th respondent

¶10

¶11

before the Lok Adalat at Visakhapatnam and the Lok Adalat passed an Award on 06.01.2017 in P.L.C.No.1733 of 2016.

¶12

The said contention is seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and it is submitted by the learned counsel that as against the said Award rendered by the Lok Adalat, the 2^nd respondent herein filed W.P.No.5330 of 2019 and the same is pending consideration before this Court.

¶13

Though the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, attacking the order under challenge, has raised a number of contentions, this Court is not inclined to go into the said aspects under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

In view of the availability of effective alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act of 2002, and since this Court granted interim order of status-quo as long back as on 22.02.2019, this Court deems it proper to permit the petitioner herein to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002, while continuing the interim order for a limited period.

¶15

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner herein to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002, along with stay application, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such appeal being filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated above, the Tribunal shall deal with the same in accordance with law. The interim order granted by this Court on 22.02.2019 shall continue for a period

¶16

¶17

of two months from today or till the stay application is disposed of by the Tribunal, whichever is later.

¶18

It is made clear that the above arrangement will enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein, if the petitioner files an appeal within the time mentioned supra, and in the event of failure to avail the alternative remedy within the time indicated supra, it is open for the 2^nd respondent-institution to proceed further with the matter, in accordance with law.

¶19

There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶20

___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶21

___________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶22

03.12.2019 Akc

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶27

Writ Petition No.2286 of 2019

¶28

Dated : 03.12.2019

¶29

Akc

Yellapu Rama Rao v. the Debts Recovery Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yellapu Rama Rao v. the Debts Recovery Tribunal

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

Ch K Rao Vs Central Bank of Ind

P v Rao Vs Central Bank of India

Gadiparthi Venugopal Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kuppa Tandava Sankar Vs Dhanalaxmi Bank

Jay Krishna Industries Vs Andhra Bank

L. Poornachandra Rao Vs Corporation Bank