Dismissed

Syed Sakeena Begum v. The Authorized Officer

Telangana HC27 Mar 2012WP/8477/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank's enforcement action under the SARFAESI Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held the writ was not maintainable as the statutory remedy of an application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal existed and granted liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the effective alternative remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Syed Sakeena Begum 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 WRIT PETITION NO.8477 OF 2012

¶3

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

¶4

The petitioner’s husband availed credit facility from Andhra Bank, Banaganapalli Town. As the loan was irregular, the bank initiated action under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter, the SARFAESI Act or the Act) and issued notice of demand. The amount was not paid. The bank then issued possession notice and filed Crl. M.P. No. 203 of 2011 in C.F.R. No. 254 of 2011 under Section 14 of the Act before the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.), Kurnool. By order dated 12.12.2011, the learned C.J.M. appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property mortgaged (secured asset). The petitioner’s husband died on 17.5.2002.

¶5

The petitioner herein approached the bank allegedly offering to pay the entire loan amount due. According to the petitioner, the bank refused to accept the payment and release the property. The bank then issued notice of sale under Rule 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereafter, the Rules). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioner made submissions reiterating the contentions taken in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition.

¶7

The Standing Counsel for the Andhra Bank has obtained instructions from the bank. He placed before this Court a copy of the letter dated 27.3.2012 addressed by the Senior Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Banaganapalli Branch. This letter shows that after taking

¶8

possession of the secured asset through the Court, the bank conducted auction on 20.3.2012; the fourth respondent became successful bidder; paid 25% bid amount on 20.3.2012; the balance amount was paid on 24.3.2012 and that the vacant possession was delivered to the successful bidder on 26.3.2012. The submissions made by the Standing Counsel after obtaining instructions are disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that the fourth respondent paid only 25% and he did not pay the entire amount as stipulated under the Rules.

¶9

This is a matter which cannot be decided in a writ petition. When any action is taken pursuant to Section 13(4) of the Act, any person aggrieved including the borrower has a remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal(D.R.T.). A writ petition is ordinarily not entertained as held by the Supreme Court [1] i n United Bank of India v Satyawati Tondo n and Kanaiyalal Lalchand

¶10

Sachdev v State of Maharashtra^[2] .

¶11

In view of the above, we give liberty to the petitioner to avail the effective and efficacious alternative remedy and dismiss the writ petition. The miscellaneous petition shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶13

(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶14

27^th March 2012 Note: Furnish c.c. by Monday B/o pnb

¶15

[1] (2010) 8 SCC 110 : AIR 2010 SC 311

¶16

[2] (2011) 2 SCC 782 : 2011 (8) SCJ 484

Syed Sakeena Begum v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Sakeena Begum 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunitha Krishnan Hyderabad Vs Govt of Ap. Chief Secretary and 12 Others

Papayapalem Gram Panchayat Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. M. Pradyumma Vs Mr. Tabassum Saleem

The State of a.P., rep.by Tahsildar, Vs M/s.Sree Panchamurty Co-op House Building Society Ltd.

Buchipudi Naveen Kumar Reddy Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad

M. Ravinder Reddy, Vs The State Bank of Patiyala