Dismissed

M/s. Velankani Matha Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd., v. State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep by its Authorised Officer

Telangana HC7 Sept 2016WP/15242/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an E-Auction Sale Notice issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad under the SARFAESI Act as infructuous. The Court held that since the respondent failed to conduct the auction under the impugned notice, the challenge lost its object. Consequently, associated interim orders were also vacated or dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous and interim orders dated 28.4.2016 and 30.6.2016 were vacated.

M/s. Velankani Matha Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD

¶3

Writ Petition No.15242 of 2016

¶4

Date:07.9.2016

¶5

Between : M/s Velankani Matha Cotton Industries Private Limited, Karimnagar, reptd by its Managing Director-Ambati Joji Reddy

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

And: State Bank of Hyderabad, Karimnagar, reptd by its Authorized Officer. ....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. N.Siva Reddy For Mr. D.Gopala Krishna Counsel for the respondent: Mr. A.Krishnama Raju

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

2 CVNR, J & GSP, J W.P.No.15242 of 2016 Dt:07.9.2016

¶10

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶12

“….issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein with regard to publication of E-Auction Sale Notice on 24.04.2016 in Eenadu Telugu Daily News Papers Karimnagar Edition dated 21.04.2016, fixing the auction on 27.05.2016 issued by the respondent herein whereunder the respondent has invoked the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder in respect of Petition Schedule properties and to declare the impugned action as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of provisions contained in Articles-14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, to set aside the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 21.04.2016 fixing the auction on 27.05.2016, including the possession notices dated 27.01.2016 and Demand Notice dated 02.11.2015.as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of provisions contained in Articles-14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violation of principles of natural justice.”

¶13

At the hearing, Mr. A.Krishnama Raju, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that his client could not hold the auction in pursuance of the impugned e-auction sale notice and that a fresh sale notice has been issued on 29.8.2016.

¶14

3 CVNR, J & GSP, J W.P.No.15242 of 2016 Dt:07.9.2016

¶15

Since the respondent failed to proceed with the auction in pursuance of the impugned e-auction sale notice, the cause on which the Writ Petition is filed has become infructuous.

¶16

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous,

¶17

without prejudice to the legal remedies available to the petitioner in the event a fresh auction sale notice is issued.

¶18

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim orders, dated 28.4.2016 and 30.6.2016 are vacated and WPMP.Nos.18903, 24520 and 32819 of 2016 and WVMP.No.2300 of 2016 are dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

07^th September 2016 DR

M/s. Velankani Matha Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd., v. State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep by its Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Velankani Matha Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd., v. State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep by its 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

Sri K Narayan Reddy Vs Sri Tatipamula Srinvasulu , Tatepally Srinivas

Akunuri Veera Raghavaiah, Vs The Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government of

Nangunoori Vinod Rao, Vs The Authorised Officer

M. Nageshwar Rao, Vs The Recovery Officer

Kosaraju Avinash Vs The Secretary Lok Adalat Constituted by Mandal Legal

Nannapaneni Sreeramamurthy, Vs M/S Nava Nirmana Engineering and Infratech (Hyd)