Dismissed

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

Telangana HC8 Aug 2014WP/22437/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to set aside the bank's e-auction notice for the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners failed to exhaust their alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17(1) of the Act, rendering the writ petition inadmissible.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file an appeal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Magani Udaya Shankar Rao, Vs The State Bank of… — 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.22437 OF 2014

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the e-auction-cum-Sale Notice, dated 9.7.2014, issued by the respondent/Bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) in respect of Residential Building bearing Old H.No.6-3-609/13 & 6-3-603/1, N.No.6-3-609/114, Flat No.503, Sumitra Mansion situated at Anand Nagar Colony, Khairatabad in the name of petitioner No.2 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to set aside the same.

¶6

2. Heard.

¶7

3. Challenging the possession notice, dated 25.10.2013, issued by the respondent/Bank, petitioner No.1 herein earlier filed W.P.No.33848 of 2013 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 9.6.2014 holding that petitioner No.1 herein has an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. But, without availing the said remedy, the petitioners filed the present writ petition after issuance of e-auction-cum-sale notice, dated 9.7.2014, by the respondent/Bank. The grounds raised in W.P.No.33848 of 2013 are more or less similar to the grounds raised in the present writ petition. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to admit the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶8

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the

¶9

petitioners to file an appeal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

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

¶11

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶12

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 8.8.2014 AMD

¶13

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

¶14

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.22437 OF 2014

¶16

DATE: 8.8.2014

¶17

AMD

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Miss Taizeen Fathima Katoon Vs The Authorized Officer

J. Lakshmi Vs The Sub Registrar

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