Dismissed

Smt.Yejju Naga Lakshmi w/o.Siva Rama Krishna Prosad v. Indus Ind Bank Limited

Telangana HC22 Aug 2014WP/24231/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that an alternative remedy under Section 17 is available and the petitioner failed to demonstrate violation of natural justice, fundamental rights, or lack of jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.

Smt.Yejju Naga Lakshmi w/o.Siva Rama Krishna… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24231 OF 2014

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of respondent No.1 in initiating auction proceedings in respect of the petitioner’s share of property to an extent of 242 square yards bearing Door No.75-2-5 situated at Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District, as illegal and consequently set aside the auction notice, dated 14.07.2014, in R.P.No.7 of 2012 in O.A.No.203 of 2010 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.

¶5

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

3. An effective alternative remedy of making an application as contemplated under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) is available to the petitioner.

¶7

4. No doubt, availability of the statutory alternative remedy is not a bar for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, at the same time, the petitioner must show that her case falls under any of the three grounds as contemplated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai

¶8

and others^[1] viz., violation of principles of natural justice, violation of fundamental rights and the authority, which issued the

¶9

proceedings lacks jurisdiction. But, the case of the petitioner does not fall under any one of the three grounds as mentioned above.

¶10

5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is having jurisdiction. 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

¶13

Date:22.08.2014 INL

¶14

[1] (1988) 8 SCC 1

Smt.Yejju Naga Lakshmi w/o.Siva Rama Krishna Prosad v. Indus Ind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Yejju Naga Lakshmi w/o.Siva Rama Krishna Prosad v. Indus Ind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ponnam Ojaiah Vs The District Collector

S.Harikrishna Vs Secy. Apswreis. Hyd

K.S.Mallikarjuna Rao Hyd Vs K.Krishna Murthy Vzm

Srr Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Vs G.S. Rama Rao

Sri M.Mahender Reddy Vs Sri M.Yadi Reddy

M/s. Asian Securities and Estates Ltd., Vs Mr. Mohammed Ajarudin