Dismissed

Pinnamaneni Anitha Krishna Rao v. The Government of India

Telangana HC12 Sept 2014WP/15484/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismissed a writ petition challenging Respondent No.2's attempt to enforce a SARFAESI notice over the petitioner's property. The court held that the sale appears prima facie invalid against a prior mortgage and that the petitioner's remedy lies elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail legal remedies elsewhere; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Pinnamaneni Anitha Krishna Rao Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15484 OF 2014

¶3

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

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in trying to proceed against the property of the petitioner i.e., Unit No.2 in 2^nd floor of Amsri Faust Complex situated at S.D. Road, Secunderabad without responding to the reply given to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”), as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct respondent No.2 to proceed against the property of the petitioner only after giving notice and an opportunity.

¶5

2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that respondent No.3 is a construction firm and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are its partners. They constructed a complex and named it as “Amsri Faust” and the said complex is bearing Municipal No.9-1164/A, 9-1-165 and 9-1-166 situated at S.D. Road, Secunderabad. The complex constructed by respondent No.3 is of five floors and respondent No.3 made each floor into units and put to sale. The petitioner purchased 2^nd unit having 2040 sq.ft., in 2^nd floor with an undivided share of 48 sq.yards under a registered sale deed, dated 6.1.2011, and since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Respondent No.3 and its partners troubled him a lot for registering the property in his favour having entered into an agreement of sale on 7.2.2006. After long persuasion and after satisfying

¶6

respondent Nos.4 and 5, unit No.2 in 2^nd floor was registered in his favour. He leased the said premises to Beam Telecom Private Limited for use and occupation. While so, he received a copy of notice from his tenant, which was issued by respondent No.2. The said notice had been issued by respondent No.2 to respondent Nos.3 to 5 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 21.3.2014. As per the said notice, it appears that respondent Nos.3 to 5 obtained loan from respondent No.2 in February, 2009 to a tune of Rs.34,35,000/- and falsely mortgaged the 2^nd floor of the complex as a security to the loan without having any right. On verification, the petitioner came to know that respondent No.2 is not clear about the property given as mortgage to the sanctioned loan and a blanket notice has been given as if the entire 2^nd floor has been mortgaged to respondent No.2 on 11.2.2009. He got issued a reply notice on 17.5.2014 to respondent No.2 for which there is no response from respondent No.2 till date and in turn, respondent No.2 is trying to proceed against the aforementioned property. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶7

3. Heard.

¶8

4. The petitioner is said to have purchased the property in question from respondent Nos.3 to 5 under a registered sale deed, dated 6.1.2011, and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. According to the petitioner, the sale deed was preceded by an agreement of sale, dated 7.2.2006. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 created a mortgage in favour of respondent No.2 on 11.2.2009. Prima facie, the sale in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be a valid one. So, if the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, the remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere and not before this Court. Hence, we do not find any reasons to admit the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with a liberty to the

¶10

petitioner to avail the remedies available to him under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶12

JUSTICE ANIS Date: 12.9.2014 AMD

¶13

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

¶14

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.15484 OF 2014

¶16

DATE: 12.9.2014

¶17

AMD

Pinnamaneni Anitha Krishna Rao v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinnamaneni Anitha Krishna Rao v. The Government of India

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. M.Josephine Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Anil Kumar Ch., Vs K. Prashanth

A.M.S. Prasad Vs The Director of Sainik Welfare, Department of Sainik

P. Koteswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.Ranga Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vs The Co-operative Tribunal