Dismissed

Ahmed Abdul Muqeem, v. Debts Recovery Tribunal

Telangana HC28 Oct 2014WP/32221/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Debts Recovery Tribunal order regarding a property auction under the SARFAESI Act. It held that since the grievance did not fall under natural justice, fundamental rights, or lack of jurisdiction, the alternative remedy was not trivialized.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. No order as to costs.

Ahmed Abdul Muqeem, Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32221 OF 2014

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the docket order, dated 30.07.2014, in S.A.I.R.No.505 of 2014, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

2. learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is one of the tenderers when the bank initiated the proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) to bring the secured assets for sale; that the 2^nd respondent in collusion with the successful auction purchaser conducted the sale of the property by playing fraud and rejecting the tender application submitted by the petitioner and even without opening the same.

¶6

3. The Tribunal held that if the applicant aggrieved by the action of bank for any injustice by not opening his tender, he has to seek suitable remedy before appropriate Forum. That order is appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, petitioner has to avail that remedy.

¶7

4. No doubt, availability 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 petitioner must show that his case falls under any of the three grounds as contemplated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool

¶8

Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others viz., i) violation of principles of natural justice, ii) violation of fundamental rights and iii) the authority, which issued the proceedings lacks jurisdiction. But, the case of the petitioner does not fall under any one of the three grounds as mentioned above.

¶9

5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

¶10

Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶11

JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶12

___________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶13

Date:28.10.2014 INL

Ahmed Abdul Muqeem, v. Debts Recovery Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmed Abdul Muqeem, v. Debts Recovery Tribunal

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

V.S.D.M.B.G.Tilak Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

M/s M.Venkata Rao Infra Projects Private Limited Vs M/S. Surendra Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

K.V.K. Ramabrahmam, Vs Gundu Appa Rao

Kota Venkata Rami Reddy Vs The State Bank of India, Rep.by its Chief Manager

The Zilla Parishad, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, Vs M.Srinivas

The Union of India, Vs Shri Brahm Dev Prasad