Disposed

Chittoory Pradeeth Swamy, v. State Bank of India, Rep.by its Authorised Officer

Telangana HC6 Sept 2013WP/26213/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court stayed the sale of properties initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act notice. It directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the pending stay application expeditiously, within four weeks, to avoid third-party interest and multiplicity of litigation.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the sale proceedings under notice dated 6.8.2013 and directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the stay application within four weeks.

Chittoory Pradeeth Swamy, Vs State Bank of India… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.26213 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 06.09.2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

Chittoory Pradeeth Swamy and 2 others .. Petitioners And State Bank of India and 11 others

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.26213 OF 2013

¶11

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶12

The 1^st respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) and issued notice dated 19.11.2012 under Section 13 (4) in respect of the immovable properties with regard to which the petitioners claim to have acquired title. Assailing the said notice under Section 13 (4), the petitioners had earlier filed W.P.No.877 of 2013 and the same was dismissed by this Court giving liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. It appears that by that the time the petitioners had already filed S.A.No.313 of 2012 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam along with I.A.No.802 of 2012 seeking stay of all further proceedings which is still pending.

¶13

This writ petition is filed alleging that taking advantage of the pendency of I.A.No.802 of 2012, the 1^st respondent Bank issued a public notice dated 6.8.2013 for sale of the properties in question and that the sale is scheduled to be held on 11.9.2013. It is pleaded that in the circumstances the petitioners filed I.A.No.555 of 2013 for advancing the hearing of the application for stay and having allowed the said application the Tribunal directed S.A.No.313 of 2012 to be listed on 2.9.2013. However, the matter was not heard on that day and in the meanwhile the sale is scheduled to be held on 11.9.2013.

¶14

Hence this writ petition seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in not disposing of S.A.No.313 of 2012 and I.A.No.802 of 2012 filed for stay as arbitrary and illegal.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Bank.

¶16

As noticed above, the hearing of I.A.No.802 of 2012 was advanced to 02.09.2013 by the Tribunal in view of the sale notice issued by the 1^st respondent Bank. It is pleaded that due to the ongoing agitation in Visakhapantam though the counsel for the petitioners could not appear, the guardian of the petitioners himself appeared and made his submissions. It is alleged that without considering the urgency explained, the Tribunal adjourned the matter from 2.9.2013 to 4.9.2013.

¶17

The sale notice placed before this Court shows that the last date for submitting the tenders is 11.9.2013 and the tenders will be opened on the same day and based on the highest offer received in the sealed tenders open bidding will be conducted among the eligible bidders. Since the application for stay is still pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, according to us, it would not be proper to proceed with the sale at this stage. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, it would create third party interest resulting in multiplicity of litigation. Hence, we deem it appropriate to stay the sale proceedings under the notice dated 6.8.2013.

¶18

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, to dispose of I.A.No.802 of 2012 in S.A.No.313 of 2012, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order without fail. Till such time, the sale proposed to be held by the 1^st respondent Bank under the Notice dated 6.8.2013 shall remain stayed. It is made clear that the petitioners as well as the 1^st

¶19

respondent shall not seek any adjournment and ensure that the application is disposed of within the time fixed by this Court.

¶20

The statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the guardian of the petitioners would appear in person before the Tribunal in case their counsel is unable to appear in view of the on-going agitation at Visakhapatnam but no adjournment would be sought on that ground, is placed on record.

¶21

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶22

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶23

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶24

Date: 06.09.2013 Ivd

Chittoory Pradeeth Swamy, v. State Bank of India, Rep.by its Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chittoory Pradeeth Swamy, v. State Bank of India, Rep.by its Authorised 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

A. Vijaya Kumar, Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

K. Jayanarasimha Prasad, Vs Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

M/s. M.M.Home Appliances Vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt.of A.P.

Janab Nikath Unissa Begum Vs B. Subba Rao

The Special Deputy Collector, Vs Patel Bucha Reddy

The Special Deputy Collector, Vs Shaifuddin