Disposed

A Ramarao v. Syndicate Bank

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2020WP/5406/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants of a borrower challenged eviction notices via writ petition under Article 226. The Court observed that a statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It disposed of the petition with observations to avail such remedy and referred the matter to the DRT if approached within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with observations; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

A Ramarao Vs Syndicate Bank — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.5406 OF 2020

¶5

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar)

¶6

The petitioners, claiming to be tenants of the borrower/respondent No.2, have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the notices, dated 20.02.2020, issued by Advocate Commissioner, whereby the petitioners were asked to vacate the premises in question, within a period of seven days.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are tenants of the borrower and as such, they are having right to continue in the premises and if, before expiry of period of tenancy, they are asked to vacate the premises, they are entitled to get a reasonable time.

¶8

Learned standing counsel for respondent No.1/bank, opposing the petition submits that there is a statutory remedy available to both the petitioners under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) and as such this Court may not entertain the present petition.

¶9

Considering the fact that the petitioners are having statutory remedy, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition. However, at the same time since Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 provides certain time prescribed for availing appropriate remedy, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of with observation that if the petitioners so advised may avail statutory remedy. If such petitions are filed within a period of three

¶10

weeks from today, learned Debts Recovery Tribunal may examine the same and pass order in accordance with law.

¶11

With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶13

closed.

¶14

________________________ JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR

¶15

____________________ JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶16

2^nd March, 2020 Note : Issue C.C. by 03.03.2020 B/o IKN

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR AND

¶18

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.5406 of 2020

¶20

(Order of the Bench dictated by the Honourable Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar)

¶21

02.03.2020

¶22

IKN

¶23

C.C. by 03.03.2020

A Ramarao v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Ramarao v. Syndicate 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

Srinivasa Steel Centre Vs Repco Home Finance Ltd.

M. Madhusudhan Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddy Kodanda Rama Rao, Vs The Authorized Officer