Dismissed

M/s. Vasavi Fancy Cloth Store, v. The Authorised Officer and Asst. General Manager

Telangana HC9 Mar 2012WP/17252/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed regarding an auction notification under the SARFAESI Act. Justice V.V.S.Rao held that writ remedies under Article 226 cannot be invoked simultaneously when statutory remedies under the Debts Recovery Tribunal are available.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; liberty given to move DRT.

M/s. Vasavi Fancy Cloth Store, Vs The Authorised… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.17252 OF 2011

¶5

09.03.2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s.Vasavi Fancy Cloth Store, Rep. by its Proprietor Neela Janardhan, Bhongiri, Nalgonda District, And another.

¶8

Petitioners

¶9

And

¶10

The Authorised Officer and Asst. General Manager, M/s.Canara Bank, Bhongiri, Nalgonda District.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

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

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.17252 OF 2011

¶14

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

¶15

The first petitioner is a proprietary concern. Its proprietor, second petitioner, availed credit facilities from Canara Bank. When the loan became irregular and non-performing asset (NPA), the bank issued notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) and also published tender/auction notification, dated 31.05.2011 proposing to conduct auction on 22.06.2011. This auction notice is assailed in the writ petition.

¶16

Aggrieved by tender/auction notification, dated 31.05.2011, the petitioner filed S.A.No.60 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). However, contending that there is no regular Presiding Officer of the DRT, and in-charge officer is conducting the Court, he filed the instant writ petition.

¶17

We have heard the counsel for petitioner V.Narsimhulu and none appears for the Canara Bank.

¶18

It is well settled that a person cannot avail remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India simultaneously invoking the remedy under the statute (Bombay Metropolitan Region Development [1] Authority v Gokak Patel Volkart . ) Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. All the questions are left open to be

¶19

agitated before the DRT. We give liberty to the petitioner to move the DRT for necessary redressal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall no order as to costs.

¶20

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

¶21

___________________ (NOUSHAD ALI, J)

¶22

09.03.2012 pln

¶23

[1] (1995) 1 SCC 642

M/s. Vasavi Fancy Cloth Store, v. The Authorised Officer and Asst. General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vasavi Fancy Cloth Store, v. The Authorised Officer and Asst. General Manager

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

M/s.Jsr Real Estate, rep.by its M.D. Sri.J.Narayana, Vs The Authorized Officer

Smt. v. Visalakshi, Vs The Special Court under a.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act)

M/s New Man Mission Association, Vs Syndicate Bank

K.Sahaja Rao, Vs The State Bank of India

M.V. Rama Rao S/o late Sri kasi Vishwanatham, Vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

M/s M. Venkata Subbaiah Vs State Bank of India