Dismissed

Smt. v.Umadevi, v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC17 Dec 2015WP/41034/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an e-auction sale notice issued by a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that the petitioner's unregistered agreement of sale does not confer rights superior to the bank's secured interest and that the alternative remedy under the Act precludes judicial intervention.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

Smt. v.Umadevi, Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.41034 of 2015

¶3

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

¶4

In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the e- auction sale notice dated 13.11.2015, fixing the date of auction of the secured asset as 18.12.2015 in exercise of powers under the SARFAESI Act.

¶5

The petitioner claims that she has entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the house property bearing H.No.5-570/10C in Plot No.10-C, D2, admeasuring 285 sq. yards, in Sy.No.35, 36 & 37 of Jonnabanda, Alwal Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Originally the said property was owned by the 2^nd respondent and he has mortgaged the same with the 1^st respondent Bank for availing loan facility. In view of the default committed by the 2^nd respondent in repayment of the amount, the 1^st respondent Bank has initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act and issued the impugned sale notice. Earlier the 3^rd respondent has claimed the very same property from the 2^nd respondent based on the registered sale deed, but the 2^nd respondent has filed a suit seeking cancellation of such sale deed and the same is pending before the civil Court.

¶6

The petitioner claims that she has purchased the

¶7

property in question by way of an agreement of sale. However, as the property was mortgaged with the 1^st respondent Bank prior to the sale in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim any rights based on unregistered agreement of sale. Further, in view of the alternative remedy available under the SARFAESI Act itself, there is no reason to entertain this writ petition.

¶8

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶9

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶12

17.12.2015 v v

Smt. v.Umadevi, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v.Umadevi, v. State Bank of India

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

D. Smitha Vs M/s Repco Home Finance Limited

Habeeb Khan, S/o Babu Khan Vs State Bank of India

D.Srinivasulu Vs S.Ramanjappa

M/s. Heramba Rice Mill Vs State Bank Of India

M.Dharrna Reddy, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation

Yes Research Educational Systems, Vs State Bank of India