Disposed

Sri Venkateshwara Charitable Trust, v. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal

Telangana HC7 Jan 2016WP/810/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the return of securitisation application papers by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to re-submit papers complying with the Tribunal's jurisdictional objection and directed the first respondent to consider the compliance.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to re-submit papers complying with the objection; First respondent directed to consider compliance.

Sri Venkateshwara Charitable Trust, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.810 of 2016

¶2

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

¶3

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to register the Securitisation Application filed by the petitioner on 21.12.2015 vide SAIR.No.668 of 2015, for adjudication on merits and to pass appropriate orders.

¶4

It is the case of the petitioner that he obtained loan from UCO Bank of Ananthapur Branch, the 2^nd respondent Bank herein, for the purpose of constructing an Engineering College building in the State of Haryana. When the Bank has taken measures under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner questioned the same by filing the aforesaid Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. However, on 05.01.2016, the office returned the papers submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with the following objection:

¶5

“Pl. clarify how the application falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, when the application schedule is situated out of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal i.e., in Haryana State Time for compliance 15 days.”

¶6

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as the petitioner has taken loan from the UCO Bank of Ananthapur, the cause of action is within the State of Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, there is no reason for return of the papers submitted by him.

¶7

A perusal of the office objection, dated 05.01.2016, only indicates the papers submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are returned with an objection by granting 15 days’ time for compliance. Instead of complying with the said objection, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶8

The petitioner pleads that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted by him in view of the fact that he has taken loan from the UCO Bank of Ananthapur Branch, but he can as well give the same reply to the office objection and re-submit the papers before the Tribunal.

¶9

Hence, granting liberty to the petitioner to re-submit the papers by complying with the objection raised by the Tribunal, this Writ Petition is disposed of. If re-submission is made by complying with the objection, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider such compliance and take appropriate steps.

¶10

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶11

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶12

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶13

07.01.2016 v v

Sri Venkateshwara Charitable Trust, v. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkateshwara Charitable Trust, v. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal

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

M/s.Pillai Heights Pvt. Limited, Vs Bank of India (a Govt. of India Undertaking)

M/s 4 F Enterprises Vs The Bank of Maharashta

B. Swamydas, Vs The Depot Manager

Andhra Bank Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal

M.Devender Raju Vs K.Vivek Rao

M/s. Sree Chandrika Foods, Vs Andhra Bank, Tanuku Rep by its Authorized Officer and