Dismissed

M/s. Ramraj Food Product v. The Andhra Bank

Telangana HC16 Mar 2012WP/7240/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a sale notice under the SARFAESI Act, holding the claim barred due to an effective alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and noting the petitioner had suppressed the dismissal of a prior writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without order as to costs. The application for stay (WPMP.No.9143 of 2012) was also dismissed. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Trib

M/s. Ramraj Food Product Vs The Andhra Bank — 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.7240 OF 2012

¶4

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

¶5

The petitioner firm, statedly owner of K.V.B.Puram Mandal, M.A. Rajula Kandriga Village, Chittoor District, availed credit facilities from the respondent bank in March 2009. The immovable property was mortgaged as security. As the petitioner herein failed to pay loan instalments regularly, the bank treated it as nonperforming asset and issued notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter, the SARFAESI Act or the Act), followed by possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 27.04.2011. As the petitioner did not pay the amount, the respondent issued sale notice dated 29.05.2011. The auction was scheduled to 29.06.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP.No.25306 of 2011. The petitioner states that the Writ Petition is pending. Even while so, the respondent issued yet another public notice inviting sealed tenders/auction on 14.02.2012 and published the same in the newspapers. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent issued the impugned tender-cum-auction notice in violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and therefore, it is unsustainable. He would further submit that the petitioner availed the loan for his Mango cultivation and the season commenced shortly and if the property is now sold, it would result in irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.

¶7

The Standing Counsel for the respondent bank would submit that the petitioner’s Writ Petition being W.P.No.25306 of 2011 filed against the sale notice dated 29.05.2011 has already been dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17(1) of the Act and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. He also placed before this Court a copy of the order passed by this Court on 28.02.2012 in the said Writ Petition.

¶8

After perusing the order in W.P.No.25306 of 2011, we are convinced that in this Writ Petition filed on 14.03.2012, the petitioner has suppressed the factum of dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Be that as it is, there is an effective efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and as held by the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v Satyawati [1] Tondo n and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v State of [2] Maharashtr a , the Writ Petition is barred. We give liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT for necessary redressal.

¶9

The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. WPMP.No.9143 of 2012 shall stand dismissed.

¶10

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

¶11

_________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶12

16^th March 2012 RRB

¶13

[1] (2010) 8 SCC 110 : AIR 2010 SC 311 [2] (2011) 2 SCC 782 : 2011 (8) SCJ 484

M/s. Ramraj Food Product v. The Andhra Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Ramraj Food Product v. The Andhra Bank

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

Mandapalli Papa Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Ramidevi, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Nellore

Singampalli Srinivas Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Devarapalli Poojyasri Vs M/s Visakha Children Hospital

Bhagyanagar Switches, Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Pioneer Alloy Castings Ltd., Vs State Bank of India