Dismissed

M/s Vasanthi Enterprises, v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC2 Nov 2016WP/37559/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a 'Sale Notice' issued under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, alleging missing mandatory details. The respondent Bank clarified it was an intimation, not a notice of immediate sale via private treaty, reserving the right to auction the property later via public tender.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is closed, leaving it open to the parties to follow the procedure prescribed by law; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand dismissed.

M/s Vasanthi Enterprises, Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 37559 of 2016

¶5

ORDER: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a notice titled as “Sale Notice” purportedly issued under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶7

Heard Mr. R. Siva Sai Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Prasad, learned standing counsel for State Bank of India, takes notice for the respondents.

¶8

The main contention of the petitioner is that none of the ingredients that are required to be incorporated in a valid sale notice, have been incorporated in the impugned notice. The upset price, the date of opening of tenders, etc., are all details that are required to be incorporated statutorily in such a notice. But, they are not found in the impugned notice.

¶9

However, Mr. B.S. Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondent-Bank, submitted that what is impugned is only an intimation, and that the Bank does not intend to sell the property by

¶10

VRS,J & GSP,J WP No.37559 of 2016

¶11

¶12

private treaty. If the Bank decides to sell it, it will be only by public auction and that the public auction will be conducted only after a proper sale notice is issued, in terms of Rule 8(5) of the relevant Rules. In view of the said statement, the Writ Petition is closed, leaving it open to both the parties to follow the procedure prescribed by law.

¶13

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

__________________________
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
_____________________
G. SHYAM PRASAD, J
2 nd November, 2016
cbs

¶15

VRS,J & GSP,J WP No.37559 of 2016

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN √ AND

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶19

Writ Petition No. 37559 of 2016 (Per VRS,J)

¶20

2^nd November, 2016

¶21

cbs

M/s Vasanthi Enterprises, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Vasanthi Enterprises, 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

A. Ramanaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Govermnent of Andhra Pradesh Vs S.Haseena

Ane. Hari S/o Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Atmakuri Yesodha, Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-2

T. Babu Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Special Chief

T. Jaya Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh