Dismissed

Polapally Vishnu v. State Bank of Hyderabad, stressed Assets Resolution Centre

Telangana HC11 Nov 2011WP/27665/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by tenants challenging bank possession under SARFAESI Act, holding tenants lack independent claim and contentions were already rejected in a similar petition disposed of the same day.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; petitioners are at liberty to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Polapally Vishnu Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, stressed… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.27665 OF 2011

¶3

DATED:11.11.2011

¶4

Between: Polapally Vishnu and others … Petitioners

¶5

And State Bank of Hyderabad Stressed Assets Resolution Centre 1^st H. NO.3-5-804/2 Near Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Hyderguda, Hyderabad Rep. by its Authorized Officer & Chief Manager and others … Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.27665 OF 2011

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

As none appeared for the petitioners on 2.11.2011, the matter was adjourned to 3.11.2011 on which date on the request made by the petitioners’ counsel, the matter was directed to be posted to today. Nobody appears for the petitioners today also.

¶10

The statement of the learned counsel for the respondent – Bank that they have taken possession of the property in question on 3.10.2011 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Sarfaesi Act’), was already recorded on 2.11.2011. That statement is not controverted by the writ petitioners, in spite of opportunity for hearing given till today.

¶11

Even otherwise, the petitioners are tenants of various portions in the premises bearing No.5-74/2/D, Plot Nos.8 to 11 in Sy. No.653, Nallavelli Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The aforesaid property is said to be the security offered by the owners. The petitioners therefore have no independent claim except as tenants.

¶12

This Court has already considered and rejected similar contentions of tenants, in W.P. No.4190 of 2011 disposed of today.

¶13

In view of the same, the present writ petition does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal, under Section 17 of the Sarfaesi Act, if so advised, and seek appropriate orders. No costs.

¶14

_______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR , J 11.11.2011 bnr

Polapally Vishnu v. State Bank of Hyderabad, stressed Assets Resolution Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polapally Vishnu v. State Bank of Hyderabad, stressed Assets Resolution Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Subbash Chandra Patra Vs Senir Divisional Commercial Manager

M/s. Anand Construction Company, Vs The General Manager

M/s. Priya Ranjani Fibers Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

M/sPavan Granites, Vs The Government of A.P. Rep.by itsSecretary

Y. Rambau Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Mrs. Asiya Junaid, Vs The Regional Passport Officer