Dismissed

I.Venkateswara Rao, v. Corporation Bank

Telangana HC3 Sept 2015WP/23565/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank's failure to provide information on an asset auction. The Court held that the petitioners have a specific remedy under the SARFAESI Act via the Debts Recovery Tribunal, rendering the writ petition inadmissible for this purpose.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed. Liberty was granted to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad for relief.

I.Venkateswara Rao, Vs Corporation Bank — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23565 of 2015

¶3

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)

¶4

The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following prayer:

¶5

“…… Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in not providing any information with regard to the action taken by the respondent Bank consequent to the Notice dated 4.5.2015 pursuant to the petitioners representation dated 13.7.2015 in relation to the properties bearing Flat No.202, 2^nd Floor, Sai Kiran Residency, Pragathi Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, and M/s. SPT Bio Fuels Industries, Sy.No.637 and 638/EE, Peddakaparthi (V), Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District, R/o. Kukatpally, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the respondent Bank to furnish the information as per the representation dated 13.7.2015 submitted by the petitioners and pass such other order or orders……”

¶6

2. Though auction notice dated 4.5.2015 is challenged in the writ petition on various grounds, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank, it is stated that pursuant to the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 4.5.2015, auction was conducted on 10.6.2015, wherein Sri K. Krishna Reddy and Sri G. Malla Reddy have participated and Sri K. Krishna Reddy was declared as the highest bidder for Rs.23,10,000/-. It is also stated that the said auction purchaser has deposited the entire bid amount and the sale certificate dated 4.7.2015 was issued and registered vide document No.6190/2015, dated 29.7.2015 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶7

3. Though the petitioners have challenged that E- Auction sale notice is not in accordance with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “the SARFAESI Act”) and the Rules made thereunder, the auction purchaser, who has purchased the secured assets in E- Auction conducted on 10.6.2015, is not before us. In any event, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the auction of the secured assets, they are at liberty to avail the remedy by way of filing Securitisation Application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶8

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, if they are aggrieved by E-Auction sale notice dated 4.5.2015 and auction of the secured assets in favour of the third party auction purchaser in the auction conducted on 10.6.2015. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶9

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶10

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 03.09.2015. Msr

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.23565 of 2015

¶14

03.09.2015 Msr

I.Venkateswara Rao, v. Corporation Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.Venkateswara Rao, v. Corporation 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

V.S.R.Sastry, Vs Sri B.Venkatesam

M/s Sanman Homes Private Limited, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Alamanda Satyanarayana Vs State Bank of India, Rep.by its Chief Manager

Ch. Veera Bhadra Rao, Vs State Bank of India

Sri. Myadaboina Srinivas, Vs State Bank of India

Dr.v.v.Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences