Disposed

Kambampati Purnachandra Rao, v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC5 Aug 2014WP/20488/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a bank's sale notice under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that disputed facts regarding the petitioner's liability and the firm's status must be established by evidence before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file an application before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a Securitisation Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal; Writ Petition disposed of.

Kambampati Purnachandra Rao, Vs State Bank of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20488 of 2014

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed for a declaration, declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing the sale notice dated 11.07.2014 proposing to sell the petitioner’s property covered under Doc.No.4556 of 1998 to the extent of 350 Sq. yards in Plot No.909B, Sy.No.44/1, Matrusri Cooperative Housing Society, Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal & Municipality, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary and to set it aside.

¶5

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a guarantor and he has not given any guarantee to the loan obtained by the farmers and therefore, the bank cannot proceed against him under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and recover the amount, as it relates to the loan availed by the third respondent firm and therefore, he prays to admit the Writ Petition.

¶6

3. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents bank contended that the stock was pledged with the bank; and that more than half of the stock was found missing and therefore, the bank lodged a complaint with the police, and that since the petitioner is challenging the proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, he has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶7

4. Whether the SARFAESI Act is applicable to the case of the

¶8

petitioner or not; whether the farmers filed the suit or not; whether the petitioner stood as a guarantor to the loan obtained by the farmers or not; and whether the petitioner is one of the partners of the firm or not, are required to be decided by the Tribunal after giving necessary opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence. These disputed questions of facts cannot be resolved exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a Securitisation Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶10

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶11

_______ JUSTICE ANIS

¶12

Date: 05.08.2014 sr

Kambampati Purnachandra Rao, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kambampati Purnachandra Rao, v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panguluri Venkata Ravi Vs Shaik Mastan Vali

Penu Pranay Enterprises, Vs The Syndicate Bank

M/s. Bezawada Motor Pvt.Ltd, rep.by Managing Director, Vs Indian Bank

Sivasakthi Traders Vs The State Bank of India

M/s. Deccan Chronicles Holdings Limited Vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal

K.Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Appalaswamy Vs Government of Telangana