Dismissed

Kakollu Suresh Babu v. Indian Bank .

Telangana HC23 Sept 2014WP/15404/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Writ Petitions challenging a bank's seizure of a rice mill and paddy under a hypothecation agreement. The Court held that since disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and agreement terms existed, this was beyond the writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petitions dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

Kakollu Suresh Babu Vs Indian Bank . — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.12856 & 15404 of 2014

¶4

C O M M O N - O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶5

These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the action of the first respondent-bank in trespassing into M/s.Sri Hanuman Rice Industries-petitioner in W.P.No.12856 of 2014, and seizing the Mill and paddy kept by the petitioners in W.P.No.15404 of 2014 for drying purpose as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the first respondent-bank to deliver the Mill premises and paddy, by removing the lock and key, to their owners.

¶6

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Malakondaiah and his wife are the partners of M/s.Sri Hanuman Rice Industriespetitioner in W.P.No.12856 of 2014, and they availed term loan in the name of firm on Cash Credit Facility from the first respondentbank, but failed to repay the same. Due to the non-payment of the loan amount by the firm, the first respondent-bank seized the said firm and the paddy kept in it by the petitioners in W.P.No.15404 of 2014 for drying purpose. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petitions are filed.

¶7

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions contended that the first respondent-bank is interfering with the rice mill and paddy available in the mill, and that there is no authority of law to take possession of the hypothecated goods, and therefore, he prays to admit the Writ Petitions.

¶8

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent-bank contended that in pursuance of the

¶9

hypothecation agreement, the mill and its accessories were pledged with the bank, and therefore, they have got a right and accordingly, they took possession; that in view of the fact that some disputed question of facts arise in the said petition, it cannot be resolved by this Court by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

¶10

5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent-bank, it is clear that there is a clear clause in the hypothecated agreement, which has been specially mentioned in the counter affidavit, and in pursuance of the hypothecated agreement only, the possession of the mill and its accessories have been taken by the bank. Whether the hypothecated stock belongs to the petitioners in W.P.No.15404 of 2014 or not, whether the rice mill belongs to the petitioner in W.P.No.12856 of 2014 or not, are the disputed questions of fact, which are to be decided in a separate forum. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the remedy to redress the grievance of the petitioners.

¶11

6. Hence, these Writ Petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.

¶12

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶13

_______ JUSTICE ANIS

¶14

Date: 23.09.2014 sr

Kakollu Suresh Babu v. Indian Bank .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakollu Suresh Babu v. Indian Bank .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Narasimulu, Vs The District Collector

Alla Sanyasi Rao Vs The Kanaka Mahalakshmi Co-operative

M/s.Puja Developers and Constructions Vs M.R.Srikanth Sharama

A.v.Rizwan Rasheed Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal

Smt. Kalavacharla Venkata Jagadeswari Vs The General Manager, State Bank of India

M/s. Venkata Surya Cashew Nut Vs The Indian Overseas Bank