Dismissed

Miss Taizeen Fathima Katoon v. The Authorized Officer

Telangana HC8 Aug 2014WP/14979/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a Debts Recovery Tribunal order. The Court held the petition inadmissible due to the Tribunal's status quo order and directed the petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed non-meritoriously; liberty to file appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act granted.

Miss Taizeen Fathima Katoon Vs The Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.14979 OF 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the order, dated 7.5.2014, in S.A.No.41 of 2013 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and to quash the same, as vitiated by material irregularity, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”), and to restore S.A.No.41 of 2013 to the file of the Tribunal by directing the Tribunal to hear the same on merits.

¶6

2. Petitioners herein/applicants filed the aforementioned Securitization Application before the Tribunal challenging the action of the respondent Bank in taking measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act under possession notice, dated 15.1.2013, against A & B schedule properties and to declare the same as null and void on the ground that respondent No.3 alone had created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of schedule property in collusion with respondent No.2 and without their knowledge, obtained the title deeds on the pretext of providing loan facility to them, and they neither stood as guarantors nor created the mortgage and further, the respondent Bank has not followed the rules contemplated under Rules 8(1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 while issuing the said possession notice and therefore, the action of the respondent Bank is illegal and the possession notice is liable to be set aside.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed S.A.No.41 of 2013 on the ground that the appeal itself is not maintainable as it was pre-mature, as the respondent Bank has not till taken physical possession of the property except issuing the possession notice, dated 15.1.2013, and only took the symbolic possession of the property.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants contended that several grounds have been raised before the Tribunal challenging the notice issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, but the Tribunal, without deciding them, dismissed the aforementioned Securitization Application on the ground that it was filed pre-maturely and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and to restore the same to the file of the Tribunal, and also to direct the Tribunal to hear the same on merits.

¶9

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank contended that on the earlier occasion, the petitioners filed W.P.No.23475 of 2013 and the same was disposed of directing the Tribunal to dispose of S.A.No.41 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible and in pursuance of the said order, the present impugned order was passed; that after disposal of S.A.No.41 of 2013, the petitioners herein filed S.A.No.497 of 2014 and obtained status quo order and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶10

6. In view of the fact that status quo order was passed by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to admit the writ petition. Furthermore, the petitioners can avail the statutory effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶11

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of

¶12

admission giving liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Appellate Authority. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

8. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶15

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 8.8.2014 AMD

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶17

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.14979 OF 2014

¶19

DATE: 8.8.2014

¶20

AMD

Miss Taizeen Fathima Katoon v. The Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Taizeen Fathima Katoon 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

Smt. N. Ahalya Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad

Mr.G.Fazeel Ahmad Vs Smt.S.Jameela Unnisa

Chakka Koteswara Rao Vs Annapureddy Sankara Reddy

Magani Udaya Shankar Rao, Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad, Cheriyal Branch

J. Lakshmi Vs The Sub Registrar

Smt. D. Lalitha Prasad, Vs Union of India, rep. by its Secretary