Dismissed

Appaka Uday Srinivas v. the Regional Manager

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jul 2024WP/13565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged respondent finance company's SARFAESI proceedings alleging non-compliance with Section 13 notice requirements and contending they were untenable alongside pending arbitration. Relying on precedent that SARFAESI enforcement and adjudicatory arbitration can proceed in parallel, and noting the alternative remedy under Section 17(2), the court dismissed the writ petition without

What the court decided

AI extract

Appaka Uday Srinivas Vs the Regional Manager — Arbitration | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

¶6

THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 13565 OF 2024

¶8

Between;

¶9

Appaka Uday Srinivas, S/o. Dharma Rao, aged 54 years, Srinivasa Enterprises, D. No.7-4, Ganapathi Centre, Appaka Vari Street, Bhimadole Village and Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The Regional Manager, M/s. Shiram City Union Finance^{Limited,D.No.} 22B-13-8, 2'"'^ Floor, Venkatarama Power Press Road,^Opp:Central Bank, Powerpeta, Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶13

The Authorized Officer, M/s.Shiram City Union Finance^{Limited,D.No.} 22B-13-8, 2'"'^ Floor, Venkatarama Power Press Road, Opp: Central Bank, Powerpeta, Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly^{oneinthenature} of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents not to proceedⁱⁿ any manner with regard to possession, sale of the properly^{anextentof1000} Sq. Yards in Survey N0.66/2C Near Door Number bearing^{DoorNo.13-110} situated at Bhimadole Village and Mandal, West Godavari District at present Eluru District (covered document No. 794/2018)^belongstothe petitioner, pending ARBOP No. 6 of 2023 before the^{XXVIAdditionalChief} Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and CRP No.3753^{of2023beforethe} Honorable High Court at Hyderabad belongs to Petitioner^{bydeclaringthat} the Respondent Company has no right, title or interest^{toproceed withthe}

¶16

¶17

^id property without issue the fresh notices under^{SARFAESIAct,2002} lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to exercise any right of taking delivery of possession, sale etc. or to deal in any other way in respect of property an extent of 1000 Sq. Yards in Survey No.66/2C Near Door Number bearing Door No.13-110 situated at Bhimadole Village and Mandal, West Godavari District at present Eluru District (covered document No.794/2018) belongs to the petitioner, pending ARBOP No. 6 of 2023 before the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad: and CRP No.3753 of 2023 before the Honorable High Court at Hyderabad belongs to the petitioner.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. GANDHAM SR PRASAD

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

*5»

APHC010272482024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA Bench Sr,No:15 PRADESH [3443] AT AMARAVATI

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO; 13565 of 2024

Appaka Uday

...Petitioner

Srinivas

Vs.

The Regional Manager and Others

¶32

...Respondent(s)

¶33

¶34

Mr. Gandham S.R. Prasad, Counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

Mr.Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, Counsel for respondents.

¶36

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶37

DATE : 2nd July 2024 PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral):

¶38

The petitioner is challenging the procedure initiated by the respondent i.e., M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited on the ground that the same are contrary to the provisions of the Securitization and^{ReconstructionofFinancial} Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”).

¶39

The ground taken is that the mandatory provisions of^{Section13ofthe} SARFAESI Act to the extent it required affixation of notice on the conspicuous part of the immovable properties as mandated under Rule 8(7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, was not followed. Apart from this, it is urged that the possession notice was not published in two vernacular

¶40

¶41

HCJ a NJS, J W.P. No: 13565 of 2024

¶42

¶43

newspapers as was otherwise required under Rule 8(6)^{oftheRules.Another} point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the parties had already resorted to the remedy of arbitration and that the Award, dated 10.08.2022, came to be passed in favour of the respondents against which an Appeal has since been preferred, which is pending adjudication^beforethe XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad,^{underSection34} of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was thus stated that having already resorted to the remedy of arbitration, the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act were not maintainable.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶45

The issue as to whether, having resorted to the remedy of arbitration, the procedure as prescribed under the SARFAESI Act could be resorted to, is no longer res Integra. Reference in this regard can^{bemadetoM.D.Frozen} Foods Exports (P) Ltd. v. Hero Fincorp Ltd\ It was^{heldthatSARFAESI} proceedings are in the nature of enforcement proceedings^while arbitration was adjudicatory process and that SARFAESI proceedings^and arbitration proceedings could go hand in hand. Insofar as the allegation that the mandatory provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act had not been complied with by the respondents is concerned, the^{saidissuescanaswellbe} adjudicated upon by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of Section 17(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In the light of the fact that alternative remedy is available

¶46

(2017) 16 see 741

¶47

¶48

HCJ a NJS, J W.P. No: 13565 of 2024

¶49

to the petitioner, we do not find it a fit case for exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution^ofIndia.

¶50