Dismissed

Didigam Ravinder v. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, rep.by its

Telangana HC13 Dec 2006WP/25741/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a property sale to a third respondent which was conducted under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The court noted a pending related petition and held the grievance here had no legal profile or merits, dismissing the writ.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's complaint regarding the sale of property was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Didigam Ravinder Vs Andhra Pradesh State Financial… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P. NO.25741 OF 2006

¶3

BETWEEN:

¶4

D.Ravinder son of Kedari …petitioner Vs. A.P.State Financial Corporation, rep. By its Managing Director, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶6

W.P. NO.25741 OF 2006

¶7

ORAL ORDER

¶8

One Dr.T.Venugopal, a medical practitioner, availed a loan from the 1^st respondent for construction of a Nursing Home and to meet the working capital

¶9

requirements. The loan sanctioned was Rs.25 lakhs. An amount of Rs.24,25,000/was disbursed to Dr.T.Venugopal. The petitioner admittedly offered his property, a commercial complex constructed in 99 square yards opposite Bus Stand, Station Ghanapur Village, Warangal, as collateral security for the loan availed by Dr.T.Venugopal. Two other persons also offered their property as collateral security for the said loan. Admittedly Dr.Venugopal, the principal borrower defaulted in the payment of the loan instalments to the 1^st respondent.

¶10

The 1^st respondent-Corporation invoked the powers available under Sec.29 of the State Financial Corporation Act,1951, seized the property of the petitioner which was offered as collateral security and notified it for auction on 22-02-2006. The auction was held at which the 3^rd respondent quoted Rs.6,50,000/-. One Gunda Rajeswara Rao is stated to have offered Rs.7,50,000/- for the same property on 3103-2006. Since Rajeswara Rao’s offer was higher than the bid of the 3^rd respondent at the auction held on 03-02-2006, it is stated that the 1^st respondent finalized the price for the petitioner’s property at Rs.7,51,000/- and 1^st respondent registered the same in favour of the 3^rd respondent, on 10-11-2006.

¶11

It would appear that Sri Rajeswara Rao challenged the conduct of the 1^st respondent (in registering the property in favour of the 3^rd respondent) by way of W.P.No.21925 of 2006. The said writ petition is stated to be pending.

¶12

On 07-11-2006 the petitioner submitted a representation to the 1^st respondent offering to purchase his own property by paying the amount received at the auction on 03-02-2006. The 1^st respondent is said to have received the petitioner’s representation on 09-11-2006. However, the property was registered in favour of the 3^rd respondent on 10-11-2006, is the complaint.

¶13

The petitioner assails the sale of his property on 03-02-2006 in this writ petition. In fact the petitioner has earlier filed writ petition No.23084 of 2006 challenging the conduct of the respondents in not accepting his offer contained in his letter dated.07-11-2006. The said writ petition is stated to be pending.

¶14

In the light of the chronology of facts stated above, the grievance of the petitioner urged in this writ petition does not have a legal profile. The petitioner has no legal basis to challenge the sale of his property in favour of the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner cannot gainfully claim that the 1^st respondent was bound to consider his representation dated.07-11-2006. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances no order as to costs.

¶15

GODA RAGHURAM,J

¶16

*TSNR

¶17

13^th DECEMBER 22006

Didigam Ravinder v. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Didigam Ravinder v. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, rep.by its

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

Y.Madhava Reddy Vs Divisioinal Coop. Officer

M/s. Raasi Cement Ltd., Vs The a.P.State Electricity Board

A.Krishna Vs a.P.State Co.op. Rural Irrigation Corp. Ltd., rep.by its M.D

A.Raghavan, Vs Tirupathi Urban Development Authority, Tirupathi

M/s. Mahalife Online Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Govt of a.P., rep. byits Prl., Secretary

Anant Prasad L. Ganeriwal, Vs The Commissioner