Partly allowed

Bodanki Prabhakara Rao v. The Authorised Officer

Telangana HC26 Feb 2014WP/5202/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions challenging bank possession actions contrary to Debts Recovery Tribunal orders. Directing petitioners to seek modification before the Tribunal instead of approaching this Court, it stayed coercive steps for two weeks while an application is filed.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file application before Debts Recovery Tribunal for modification; coercive steps stayed for two weeks.

Bodanki Prabhakara Rao Vs The Authorised… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.5171 and 5202 OF 2014

¶4

Dated: 26.02.2014

¶5

Between: Yelavarthy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana .. Petitioner And The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Avanigadda, Krishna District and 2 others

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos.5171 and 5202 OF 2014

¶9

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶10

These writ petitions are filed with a common prayer seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 & 2 in taking possession of the property of the petitioners situated in RS No.234/5 bearing Door No.6-138 of Avanigadda Village and Mandal, Krishna District without following the order dated 7.2.2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in S.A.No.191 of 2013 and 192 of 2013 is arbitrary and illegal.

¶11

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, the petitioner in W.P.No.5171 of 2014 filed S.A.No.191 of 2013 and the petitioner in W.P.No.5202 of 2014 filed S.A.No.192 of 2013 under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) aggrieved by the possession notice dated 13.08.2013 issued by the respondents 1 & 2.

¶12

By separate orders passed on 07.02.2014 the Tribunal disposed of S.A.No.191 of 2013 and S.A.No.192 of 2013 with a direction to the writ petitioners/applicants therein to liquidate the entire liability by making payment of 50% of the amount due on or before 25.02.2014 and remaining 50% on or before 27.03.2014.

¶13

Admittedly the said order came to be passed on the basis of a memo filed by the petitioners themselves expressing willingness to

¶14

pay the amounts within the above mentioned dates.

¶15

The present writ petitions came to be filed alleging that the respondents 1 & 2 have been attempting to take possession of the property in question and put the same to auction on 25.2.2014 and that the said action is contrary to the orders dated 7.2.2014 passed in S.A.No.191 of 2013 and S.A.No.192 of 2013 .

¶16

It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioners have not paid the 50% of the amount payable on or before 25.02.2014. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners across the bar that the petitioners are willing to pay the entire amount on or before 27.03.2014 and therefore the respondents may be directed not to take any coercive steps till such time.

¶17

It appears to us that the petitioners are virtually seeking modification of the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam dated 07.02.2014 in S.A.No.191 of 2013 and S.A.No.192 of 2013. That being so, the petitioners ought to have approached the Tribunal itself before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we deem it proper to permit the petitioners to make an appropriate application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam for redressal of their grievance. If any such applications are filed, the Tribunal shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one week from the date of receipt of this order. In the meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for recovery of the amounts due for a period of two (2) weeks from today.

¶19

The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶20

______________

¶21

G.ROHINI, J

¶22

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶23

Date: 26.02.2014 Note: Issue CC by 28.02.2014 (B/o) Ivd

Bodanki Prabhakara Rao v. The Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodanki Prabhakara Rao v. The Authorised Officer

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

T.N.Nagamani Vs L.Peddi Reddy

R.Venkateshwer Reddy Vs Md. Waheed

Poonam Agarwal Vs Neeraj Agarwal

Yelavarthy Veera Venkata Satyanaryana Vs The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India

M/s Varuna Investments, Vs M/s. Asian Infrastructure pte, Limited

Union of India Vs K.Saroja