Dismissed

M/s K/s Bio Energey Industries, v. The State Bank of India

Telangana HC2 Jul 2014WP/18095/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking writ relief against seizure of leased premises and equipment established by its business unit. Court held that remedy lies under law, not in this Writ Petition, as seizure was pursuant to competent court order in criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; petitioner may avail appropriate remedies under law.

M/s K/s Bio Energey Industries, Vs The State Bank of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18095 of 2014

¶3

Dated : 02.07.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s.K/S.Bio Energy Industries Rep. by its Managing Partner Kalluri Bujjaiah, S/o Kalluri Haribabu, 26 yrs., Business, R/o Alakurapadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Ongole District.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

And The State Bank of India, rep. by its Authorised Officer, S.M.E. Branch, Santhapeta, Ongole, Prakasam District and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following :

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.18095 of 2014

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

The petitioner claims to have entered into a registered lease agreement dated 16.05.2012 with Gogineni Anil Kumari-2^nd respondent in respect of the premises to an extent of Ac.1.08 cents in Survey No.540/1 of Kakatuvaripalem Village in Tanguturu Mandal of Ongole District along with incomplete shed admeasuring 9100 square feet and RCC building admeasuring 625 square feet with power connection. The petitioner

¶14

has established a unit for manufacture of Bio-Brickets. It also obtained loan from the respondent bank to establish the said unit. Subsequently, pursuant to the orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, dated 16.05.2014, in Crl.M.P.No.105 of 2014, the entire premises was seized.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not aware of the criminal proceedings pending against the owner of the property and there was a bonafide lease agreement. The unit established by the petitioner is nothing to do with the criminal proceedings initiated against the owner of the property. The owner never disclosed about the criminal proceedings initiated against the property and even the bank has not informed about the same while sanctioning the loan. On account of seizure of the building where the equipment is positioned, the petitioner is unable to operate the machines and the same is causing huge loss to it.

¶16

3. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take physical possession of the schedule property. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the seizure of the premises or the equipment installed therein, it has to avail appropriate remedies as available to it under law. This Court cannot grant any relief as sought for, since the criminal proceedings were already set in motion and the building was seized pursuant to the order of the competent Court. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition.

¶17

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies as available under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶19

__________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 02.07.2014 ssp

M/s K/s Bio Energey Industries, v. The State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s K/s Bio Energey Industries, v. The State Bank of India

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

Smt.P.Naga Lakshmamma, Vs The Government of A.P.

P.Saifuddin, Vs The Government of A.P.

M/ s.Boppana Civil Constructions, Vs The Visakhapatnam Port Trust

K.Rajendra Kumar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Ambati Nirmala, Vs The Government, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Noonela Appalaswamy Vs The State Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its