Dismissed

M/s Sri Vishnu Enterprises v. The Authorized Officer

Telangana HC17 Apr 2012WP/10740/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a bank's auction notice and recovery action under the SARFAESI Act of 2002, the court dismissed the petition, holding that writ jurisdiction is not maintainable when specific statutory remedies under Sections 17(1) and 13(8) exist.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and miscellaneous petition stood dismissed without any order as to costs.

M/s Sri Vishnu Enterprises Vs The Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.10740 of 2012

¶4

April 16, 2012

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s.Sri Vishnu Enterprises, represented by its Partner, E.Venkateswar, S/o.E.V.Ramalingam And another

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

And The Authorized Officer, Vijaya Bank, Narayanaguda Branach, Hyderabad

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.10740 of 2012

¶13

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶14

The petitioner is a firm which is availed loan from Vijaya Bank to a tune of Rs.50.00 lakhs. Residential flat G1 in Sri Ranga Residency, Park Lane, Secunderabad statedly of the value of

¶15

Rs.80.00 lakhs was mortgaged as security. From June, 2009 the petitioner could not pay loan instalments. The first respondent, therefore, issued notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) and the petitioner alleged that without following the procedure contemplated under Section 13(4)(a) of the Act, the respondent issued tender-cum-auction sale notice and published the same in the newspapers on 12.3.2012 proposing to auction the mortgaged property on 18.4.2012. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶16

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the property mortgaged is of the value which is more than the amount payable to the respondent; the action initiated by the respondent under the Act is illegal and arbitrary; and that the petitioner is willing to pay the loan amount if some time is granted.

¶17

It is now well settled that when an action is initiated by the bank for recovery of the loan under the Act, writ petition would not lie. If any person is aggrieved, the remedy is provided under Section 17(1) of the Act, to make application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and seek redressal. Further under Section 13(8) of the Act, it is always open to the borrower or anybody to approach the secured creditor and pay the amount due and redeem the mortgaged property. If so advised the petitioner may avail either of the remedies or both. The writ petition is misconceived.

¶18

The writ petition, as also the miscellaneous petition, shall stand dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶19

_______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J)

¶20

__________________________________

¶21

(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶22

April 16, 2012 YS

M/s Sri Vishnu Enterprises v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sri Vishnu Enterprises v. The Authorized Officer

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

P.V.V. Nageshwar Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Vpl Projects Pvt. Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

The Mothers Integral Educational Society, Vs The Gram Panchayat

Dr. Annepu Nirmala Vs The Anakapalle Municipality

Gorthi Viswanatham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kumar Metallurgical Corporation Limited Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer