Dismissed

Potharaju Subhash Rama Mohan Rao, v. The Andhra Bank Rep.by its Authorized Officer, Under

Telangana HC19 Jul 2007WP/15248/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the public auction of a house property. Finding the sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act followed due process and no contravention of statutes or mala fides, the Court refused interference but extended that the bank might consider the petitioner's request to repay dues.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus prayed for as for quashing the auction cannot be granted; Writ Petition dismissed.

Potharaju Subhash Rama Mohan Rao, Vs The Andhra Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.15248 OF 2007

¶3

DATED: 19TH JULY, 2007.

¶4

Between : Potharaju Subhash Rama Mohan Rao .. Petitioner And The Andhra Bank, rep. By its Authorised Officer, Zonal Office, Kakinada, E.G. District and others. .. Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.15248 OF 2007

¶7

ORDER :

¶8

This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the public auction dated 22.3.2007 conducted by the respondents 1 and 2 for sale of the house property belonging to the petitioner situated in RS.No.90/6A at Kondukuduru Village, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District as arbitrary and illegal.

¶9

The material on record shows that the sale was conducted by the respondents 1 and 2 invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) following due process of law in which the 3^rd respondent herein was declared as the highest bidder. The petitioner does not dispute his liability to the 1^st respondentBank. However, the petitioner who claims that he is still continuing in physical possession of the property in question contends that though he is ready and willing to repay the entire amount due, the respondents 1 and 2 are not accepting the same but on the other hand steps are being taken to dispossess him from the property in question. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the impugned action of the respondents 1 and 2 suffers from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

As noted above, absolutely no case is made out to show that the

¶11

impugned action of the respondents 1 and 2 is in contravention of any statutory provision much less the same is mala fide or prompted by the extraneous considerations. Hence, the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted.

¶12

However, it is made clear that this shall not preclude the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the request of the petitioner if the same is permissible under law.

¶13

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶14

_____________ G. ROHINI, J.

¶15

Dt. 19-7-2007 kgr

Potharaju Subhash Rama Mohan Rao, v. The Andhra Bank Rep.by its Authorized Officer, Under

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Potharaju Subhash Rama Mohan Rao, v. The Andhra Bank Rep.by its Authorized Officer, Under

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

M. Chimn Satyam S/o Saraiah Vs The District Panchayat Officer

E. Madhunaiah Vs The Registering Authority

S.S.R.K.Prasad Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation

C. Munemma Vs The Joint Collector, Chittoor

M/s.Suryalatha Spinning Mills Ltd., Marchala village Vs Regional Director, Employees State Insurance corporation

Peddisetti Venkatanandam Vs Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowment Department