The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the bank's eviction notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the notice was issued and served, and directed petitioners to raise issues in the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Writ petition disposed of without costs; no eviction stayed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI, (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEFJUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 19548 OF 2024
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
The State Bank of India, (Previously Called as SBH and merged with SBI) Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, SARB, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Ch. Ravi Kaladhar Sharma, S/o. Suryanarayana, Aged about 43 years, R/o. Gurunanak Nagar Colony, Vijayawada, A.P.-520008.
...RESPONDENT
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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the Advocate Commissioner Notice dated 28-08-2024 by directing the petitioners to evict their house viz., an extent of 204.61 Sq. Yards of site along with RCC Building constructed therein in R.S.No.36/1, 37/1, Near Door No.7614-54, situated in Bhavanipuram, within the limit of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and Sub Registry, Vijayawada and handover the possession on 05-09-2024 without issuing any prior Demand
notice or Possession Notice to the petitioners and without following the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI ACT 2002 as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of provisions contained in Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the ^ Constitution of India and also violation of principal of natural justice and consequently to set aside the advocate commissioner notice dated 28-082024 by restraining the respondent from evicting the petitioners from their house viz., an extent of 204.61 Sq. Yards of site along with RCC Building constructed therein in R.S.No.36/1, 37/1, Near Door No.76-14-54, situated in Bhavanipuram, within the limit of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and Sub Registry, Vijayawada.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent not to evict the petitioners from their house viz. an extent of 204.61 Sq. Yards of site along with RCC Building constructed therein in R.S.No.36/1, 37/1, Near Door No.76-14-54, situated in Bhavanipuram, within the limit of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and Sub Registry, Vijayawada pending disposalofthe above writ petition and pass such lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Between:
''^<^'3' (Previously Called as SBH and merged with SBI) Ravi Ih Authorized Officer , Ch. Ravi Kaladhar Sharma, S/o. Suryanarayana, Aged about43 years, R/o. Gurunanak Nagar Colony, Vijayawada, A.P.-520008.
...VACATE STAY PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND
...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the Interim Order Dated 05-09-2024 in Writ Petition Number 19548 of 2024, and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K. GANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S. SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010386652024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-45 [3446] AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 19548 of 2024
Pappula Ramana Reddy and another
...Petitioners
Vs.
The State Bank of India
...Respondent
Advocate for Petitioners
Advocate for Respondent
Mr. K Gani Reddy Mr. S Satyanarayana Moorthy
CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
DATE : 5“^ December, 2024
P C :
The main contention as was urged before us on the previousdateof hearing when we issued interim orders in favour ofthepetitionerswasthatthe basic requirement of a notice under Section 13(2) oftheSecuritizationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and EnforcementofSecurityInterestAct, 2002 had not been fulfilled and no such notice was served upon the petitioners.
- Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has drawn ourattention to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Bankwhichdoesreflectthatnot only was the notice issued but the same was also servedontheaddressof the petitioners as can be seen from the acknowledgmentduecardwhich is placed on record.
’-F'
/
<br>
2
/
HCJ & RCJ WP 19548 2024
- Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. It would be open to the petitioners to urge all theissuesbeforethe Debts Recovery Tribunal in appropriate proceedings.
- The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Noorderas to
costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall standclosed.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO assistant registrar
OFFICER
S!
Cnr
/
CNR
HIGH COURT
DATED:05/12/2024
ORDER
WP.No.19548 of 2024
? 12 DEC 202'» I
'3.
Current Section ^
DISPOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the issuance of an Advocate Commissioner notice by the bank for eviction without prior Demand Notice or Possession Notice violating Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is illegal and violative o
Whether the proceedings were conducted without following the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and principles of natural justice.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pappula Ramana Reddy and another
The State Bank of India
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
