The High Court granted a status quo order to prevent dispossession of property pending the petitioner's approach to the statutory forum under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, declining substantive interference due to factual disputes.
Status quo maintained for two weeks; parties directed to approach appropriate forum under Section 17 of the Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.41785 OF 2015
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
In this Writ Petition, petitioner questions the order, dated
07-11-2015, in Criminal M.P. No.847 of 2015, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, on the application filed by respondent No.1 - Andhra Bank, Balaji Nagar Branch, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Interest Act 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) for taking possession of the house bearing No.2-1/100 in Plot No.100, admeasuring 164 square yards and plinth area of 630 square feet in Survey Nos.72, 73, 74, 83, 84 and 86 situated in FCI WIDIA Colony, Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
Mainly it is submitted that petitioner is real owner of the subject property as the same was purchased with her ‘Sthree Dhana’ and by taking loan from respondent No.1 in the name of respondent No.2, who is her husband.
It is stated that there are disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2, as such, respondent No.2 has illegally transferred the subject property in favour of
respondent No.3, who is her sister-in-law.
It is submitted that for the loan secured by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 is guarantor and under the guise of taking steps under the Act, the bank sought to dispossess her from the subject property, where she is living with her children.
In view of the claim of the petitioner, several factual disputes arose for adjudication and there is no reason to entertain this writ petition in view of the alternate efficacious remedy available to her as provided under Section 17 of the Act.
It is also submitted by the petitioner that there is imminent threat of her dispossession from the subject property.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo for a period of two (2) weeks. In the meanwhile, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under Section 17 of the Act seeking appropriate orders.
With the directions as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, stand closed.
_____________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J _____________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J December 22, 2015. NOTE: C.C. by today. (BO) PV.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere when factual disputes exist regarding property ownership.
Whether the maintainability of the petition is barred by the existence of an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Andhra Bank, Balaji Nagar Branch
Sister-in-law of Petitioner
R. SUBHASH REDDY
A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
