A writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging an auction notice issued under the SARFAESI Act was dismissed. The court held that violations of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction did not exist.
The writ petition to quash the auction notice and direct the respondent not to confirm the sale was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.26014 OF 2014
ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the auction notice, dated 08.07.2014, relating to property bearing Row H.No.2, Municipal No.1-95/B/15/2/Z, in Zeenia Block of Nectar Garden and H.No.2-1-15/2, Plot No.5, in Survey Nos.175 and 176, Nallakunta, Hyderabad issued by the respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), without any prior intimation to the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct the respondent not to confirm the sale of the property in question and not to register the property in the name of successful bidders by way of issuance of sale certificates.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has paid Rs.4.00 crores and the outstanding amount is Rs.2.00 crores. He further contended that if reasonable time is granted, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount.
3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Bank opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner because defaulter, as loan was declared as Non-performing Asset; that there are no grounds to interfere with the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.
4. Admittedly, the sale has been conducted in pursuance of the
auction notice, dated 08.07.2014, and the third party interest has been created. If the procedure, as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act, and the Rules made thereunder, has not been followed by the respondent, the remedy of the petitioner is otherwise. It is not the case of the petitioner that the principles of natural justice are violated or the auction is conducted by the person, who lacks jurisdiction or it is a case of violation of fundamental right. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies available under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
______________ JUSTICE ANIS 04.09.2014 KH
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the issuance of auction notice under the SARFAESI Act without prior intimation warrants judicial intervention via a writ petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Bank
K.C.BHANU
ANIS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
