Dismissed

Ch K Rao v. Central Bank of Ind

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2019WP/2984/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Writ Petition challenging the bank's auction conduct is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the RDBFI Act, directing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to avail alternative remedy before the Tribunal within one month; interim status quo continued for three months.

Ch K Rao Vs Central Bank of Ind — Execution and Attachment | 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.2984 of 2018

¶5

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

¶6

Heard Sri Chittem Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Satyanarayana Dhara, learned counsel for the respondent-bank, apart from perusing the entire material available on record. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is the alleged non-fixation of proper reserve price as per the market value for the auction conducted by the first respondent-bank authorities on 20.02.2019. The schedule properties are situated at Vijayawada, Krishna District. The first respondent herein filed O.A.No.100 of 2010 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter called as ‘Tribunal’) against the petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,56,07,972.60/- and the same was decreed by the Tribunal in the year, 2010. Thereafter, the respondentbank authorities initiated recovery proceedings, by filing R.P.No.18 of 2014 and, for realisation of the amount due, the property was brought to sale and auction was held on 20.02.2019, whereunder respondent Nos.3 to 5 emerged as the successful bidders. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent-bank that

¶8

AVSS,J & MGR,J W.P.No.2984 of 2019

¶9

¶10

the sister of the petitioner herein filed a Claim Petition before the executing authority, vide I.R.R.P.No.304 of 2018, and the same was dismissed on 11.12.2018. Now, on the ground that the respondent-bank authorities did not fix the reserve value of the price in a proper manner, and completely ignored the market value of the property, the present Writ Petition came to be filed before this Court on 06.03.2019. This Court, on 07.03.2019, while ordering notice before admission and while permitting the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out notice by registered post with acknowledgment due and while directing the matter to be listed on 19.03.2019, granted an order of status quo till 20.03.2019 and the said interim order is continuing thereafter. Now, a counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent, to which a vacate application is also enclosed.

¶11

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned action, on the part of the respondent-bank authorities, is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel that the respondent-bank authorities fixed a throwaway price towards the reserve price of the property and sold the property for a paltry amount, though the property would fetch much more amount. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the respondent Nos.3

¶12

AVSS,J & MGR,J W.P.No.2984 of 2019

¶13

¶14

and 4 are the existing tenants under the petitioner and certain litigation is also pending between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶15

A reading of the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, shows that the alleged infirmity pointed out is with regard to the fixation of reserve price by the respondent-bank authorities. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent-bank that the very Writ Petition filed by the petitioner herein is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Act.

¶16

Now, in the instant case, admittedly, on 20.02.2019, auction came to be conducted in execution proceedings by the second respondent. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent-bank that, pursuant to the auction, respondent Nos.3 to 5 emerged as the highest bidders and respondent Nos.3 to 5 deposited the amount also and registration is pending as on date in view of the pendency of the present Writ Petition. This Writ Petition came to be filed as long back as in the month of March, 2019, and interim order of status quo granted by this Court is continuing since then. This Court deems it appropriate to continue the interim arrangement for some time, while relegating the petitioner herein to avail the alternative remedy as mentioned supra.

¶17

AVSS,J & MGR,J W.P.No.2984 of 2019

¶18

¶19

For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioner herein to avail the alternative remedy before the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that, for a period of three months from today, the interim order of status quo granted by this Court shall remain operative. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

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

¶21

A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶22

___________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶23

02^nd December, 2019. Tsy

Ch K Rao v. Central Bank of Ind

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch K Rao v. Central Bank of Ind

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

Vuppu Ravi Kiran Vs Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited

Koppula Rama Chandra Rao, Vs the Commissioner

Maddi Poli Reddy Vs Maddi Lalitha Kumari

K Venkateswara Rao Vs Andhra Bank

P v Rao Vs Central Bank of India

Gadiparthi Venugopal Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh