Dismissed

Uppu Lingaiah v. Andhra Bank

Telangana HC21 Oct 2014WP/30314/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging eviction notices issued by a bank under the SARFAESI Act contended these were arbitrary and violated natural justice. The Court held that tenants of secured assets have a specific remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, resulting in dismissal of the writ petition with liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Uppu Lingaiah Vs Andhra Bank — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No. 30314 OF 2014

¶2

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶3

1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the cyclostyled notices issued by the 1^st respondent dated 25.09.2014 demanding the petitioners to vacate the premises bearing D.Nos.9-6-347, 9-6-348, 9-6-349, 9-6-350, 9-6-351, 9-6-354, 9-6-355 and 9-6-356 consisting of ground and first floors situated at Ramnagar locality of Karimnagar without issuing any prior notice and without following the procedure contemplated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and to direct the

¶4

1^st respondent not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners without following the due process of law.

¶5

2. The brief facts of the case are that the 2^nd respondent is the owner of the aforesaid commercial property and the petitioners were inducted into possession as tenants on monthly rental basis long back. While so, the petitioners received notices dated 25.09.2014 from the

¶6

1^st respondent bank demanding the petitioners to vacate the premises within 15 days and to handover possession to the bank. The said notices revealed that the 2^nd respondent, who is the landlord of the petitioners, had given the said property to the 1^st respondent bank as security by standing as a guarantor to M/s.Madhava Constructions and the said borrower has committed default. But, the 1^st respondent having known the fact that the petitioners occupied the property as tenants, never issued any notice prior to the impugned notices and the landlord also never informed the said fact to them. The rights of the tenants have to be protected before taking any action under the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court.

¶7

3. The petitioners claimed that they are the tenants in respect of the secured asset, therefore there cannot be any remedy prescribed under the SARFAESI Act to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶8

4. Any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4)

¶9

of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, has to file an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶10

5. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. No order as to costs.

¶11

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

(K.C. BHANU, J)

(ANIS, J)

21.10.2014 Anr

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

¶16

WRIT PETITION No. 30314 OF 2014 (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶17

Anr

¶18

21.10.2014

Uppu Lingaiah v. Andhra Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uppu Lingaiah v. Andhra Bank

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

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs G. Narasimulu

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Collector Vs M/s.Padmini Leasing and Investments Ltd. Regd.office

Ch.Gangadhar S/o Narayana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Chief Operating Manager/Sc(Bg), Vs B.Tulasiraj

The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Vs D.V.V. Nageswara Rao Reddy, S/o. D. Sambamurthy

Kakula Aruna Jyothi Vs State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager/ Authorized