Dismissed

Y.V.S.A.R.H.P. Varma, v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC10 Sept 2014WP/26567/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed two writ petitions filed under Article 226 challenging orders of the DRT declining a stay on auctions. The Court held that the statutory remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is effective and the petitioners failed to demonstrate violation of natural justice, fundamental rights, or lack of jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Both Writ Petitions dismissed with liberty to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

Y.V.S.A.R.H.P. Varma, Vs The Chairman and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.26567 AND 26587 OF 2014

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No.26567 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the impugned order, dated 05.09.2014, in Securitisation Application No.205 of 2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the DRT’) declining to grant stay of the auction proposed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 on 10.09.2014 or any future date pending disposal of the above Securitisation Application and directing the bank to examine the contentions of the petitioner through separate Securitisation Applications as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, to set aside the same and grant stay of auction regarding an extent of Ac.0.31 cents of agricultural dry land which is part of item No.2, of the impugned possession notice and the house property in item No.3 of the possession notice, dated 11.12.2013, situated in Survey No.248/4 of Pedagummuluru village and Panchayat, S-Rayavara Mandal, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of Securitisation Application.

¶5

2. Writ Petition No.26587 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the impugned order, dated 05.09.2014, in Securitisation Application No.206 of 2014 passed by the DRT, declining to grant stay of the auction proposed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 on 10.09.2014 or any future date pending disposal of the above Securitisation Application and directing the bank to examine the contentions of the petitioner through separate Securitisation Applications as illegal, arbitrary and consequently,

¶6

to set aside the same and grant stay of auction regarding an extent of Ac.0.37 cents of agricultural dry land situated in Sy.Nos.248/4 & 248/5 of Pedagummuluru village and Panchayat, S-Rayavara Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, which is part of item No.2 of the notice pending disposal of Securitisation Application.

¶7

3. Any order passed by the DRT is appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, if a person is aggrieved by any order passed by the DRT, he can prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners have to avail the statutory remedy, which is effective and efficacious, available to them.

¶8

4. No doubt, availing of 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 petitioners must show that their 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 and others

¶9

[1] viz., i) violation of principles of natural justice, ii) violation of fundamental rights and iii) the authority, which passed the order lacks jurisdiction. But, the case of the petitioners does not fall under any one of the three grounds as mentioned above. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

¶10

5. Therefore, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶11

_______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶12

___________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶13

Date:10.09.2014 INL

¶14

[1] (1988) 8 SCC 1

Y.V.S.A.R.H.P. Varma, v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.V.S.A.R.H.P. Varma, v. The Chairman and Managing Director

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

M/s Tadikonda Ramulu Vs Government of India

The Zilla Parishad, Ranga Reddy District, Vs K.Naga Raj

Takkalapally Narayana Rao, Vs Union of India

Union of India, Vs Jaipal Singh

Shaik Raheem Vs The General Manager ( Disciplinary Authority)

Govt. of a.P., rep., by Principal Secretary, Vs Y.Venkata Subbaiah