Dismissed

M/s. Binjusaria Ispat Private Limited v. M/s. Bank of Baroda

Telangana HC19 Jan 2016WP/42197/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the bank's sale of mortgaged property was dismissed because the Debts Recovery Tribunal had already seized the matter via a pending Section 17 application, rendering alternative remedies available.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as alternative remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal are available to the petitioner.

M/s. Binjusaria Ispat Private Limited Vs M/s. Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.42197 of 2015

¶3

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

¶4

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the 1^st respondent in taking steps to sell the 2^nd respondent’s property bearing Plot No.5/D, admeasuring 2,045 sq.yards, in Sy.No.48 situated at Kattedan Village, Rajendernagar Taluq, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to Mega e-auction sale notice, dated 21.11.2015, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The 2^nd respondent borrowed certain amounts from the 1^st respondent Bank and committed default. In view of the default committed by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent Bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in respect of the secured asset. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed a suit against the 2^nd respondent for recovery of money and obtained attachment before judgment by order dated 15.11.2011, which was effected on 25.11.2011 It is the case of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent has mortgaged the subject property in favour of the 1^st respondent on 13.12.2011 i.e., subsequent to attachment ordered by the Court below, and as such, the very mortgage itself is illegal.

¶6

During the course of hearing, Sri K.Mallikarjuna Rao,

¶7

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, submitted that against the measures taken by the 1^st respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, the 2^nd respondent has filed Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained interim direction not to confirm the sale and the said Securitisation Application is pending. It is further submitted that as the suit filed by the petitioner was already decreed, the attachment effected will not bind the 2^nd respondent.

¶8

As much as the measures taken by the 1^st respondent under the SARFAESI Act are the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal, there is no reason to entertain this writ petition filed by the petitioner. As the matter is seized off by the Tribunal, the petitioner can as well question the subject proceedings either independently or by taking appropriate steps in the Securitisation Application already filed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

In view of effective alternative remedies available to the petitioner, we dismiss the writ petition only on said ground, leaving it open to the petitioner to take steps as referred to above.

¶10

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

¶11

____________________________

¶12

JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶13

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶14

19.01.2016

¶15

v v

M/s. Binjusaria Ispat Private Limited v. M/s. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Binjusaria Ispat Private Limited v. M/s. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Srinivasa Rao, Vs M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Artham Manohar Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Sri. Vangeti Kishore Kumar, Vs Andhra Bank

Barigala Kotesh, Vs The District Collector and

Marri Sai Sree Vs v.S.R.Anjaneyulu

Gangireddy Kesava Renuka Vs Sri L v Subamanyam, I.A.S.