Petitioners had challenged a proclamation of sale-cum-e-auction notice issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Recovery Officer in respect of their properties, contending the properties were not secured assets. At hearing, counsel stated the matter was rendered infructuous and the Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
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)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 7692 OF 2024
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamustodeclaretheactionof the 6'^ respondent in issuing proclamation of sale-cum-EAuctionSalenotice dated 26.2.2024 communicated to the petitioners through RPAD on 04.03.2024 and publishing the same in News Paper TheHinduon3-3-2024 in respect of the properties of the petitioner (a) existing within the extent of 359 S.q Yards bearing Plot No 124 with RCC Buildingconstructedthereon having Ground plus 3 upper floors bearing D-no 50-1-64, situated at Seetammadhara area covered by Sy. No. 7 of Resupuvanipalem Village, Visakhapatnam District and (b) a site having an extent of 167 Sq. Yards along with 3 storied Residential building Constmcted bearing D.No. 1- 584/2/3, Plot No 11 situated in MVP Colony Layout, Sector 2 in Sy. No. 28/P of Venkojipalem Village, Visakhapatnam District, though the above said properties does not fall under secured assets or mortgaged properties as per the findings dated 7.10.2021 of DRT. Visakhapatnam passed in O.A. No. 103/2018 and Counter Claim No 1 of 2019 in O.A. 103 of 2018 by DRT, Visakhapatnam, that too while the petitioner is sortingouttheremedies in this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 28771/2023 by questioning the orders passed in I.A. No. 308 of 2023 in Dairy No. 536 of 2023 in so far compelling the petitioner to make 40percent of Rs 13.10 crore as pre-depositwithin a period of 4 weeks for the purpose of entertaining the Appeal preferred by the petitioner in the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata against the order passed by the DRT. Visakhapatnam in O.A No. 103 of 2018 and Counter Claim No. 1 of 2019 dated 7-10-2021 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to theBanksandFinancial Institutions Act 1993 and also to the procedure contemplated under SARFACIE Act, 2002 and Violative of Articles 21 and 300A of the constitution of India.
€
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to order the Respondents to not to take any further or coercive steps in pursuance of proclamation of sale-cum-E Auction Sale notice dated. 26.2.2024 against the specified schedule properties mentioned therein belong to petitioners pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Between:
...VACATE STAY PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 to 5 in WP No.7692 of 2024PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS in W.P. No.7692/2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the Interim Order grantedon02-05-2024in Writ Petition No.7692/2024, with exemplary costs.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A, SATYA PRASAD FOR
SRI PRAKASH BUDDARAPU
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI VENKATESWARLU
GUNDUBOINA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
Counsel for the Respondent NoSi2 & 6: NONE APPEARED
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI S. SATYA NARAYANA MOORTHY
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010147462024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-17 [3483] AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 7692 of 2024
M/s. VMS Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India and others
...Respondents
Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr. A. Satya Prasad for Mr. Prakash Buddarapu
Advocate(s) for Respondent(s):
Mr. S. Satyanarayana Moorthy - R3 to R5
CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 21st October 2024
P C :
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter has been
rendered infructuous.
- Accordingly, this mH petition is disposed of as infructuous.No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- K L P AVAN I
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
^ [OPUC]
Cnr
HIGH COURT
DATED:21/10/2024
ORDER
WP.No.7692 of 2024
ano/^
1^ 18 MAR 2025 tti
Co«
Current Section
•5? p!^S->ArC'r^ -vrv
DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AS INFRUCUTOUS WITHOUT COSTS
M/s. VMS Nirman Pvt. Ltd.
Maddila Sri Rama Murty
Union of India
Reserve Bank of India
State Bank of India
Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam
Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Ravi Cheemalapati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
