Dismissed

Mantena Srinivasa Subrmanyam Raju v. Authorized Officer

Telangana HC9 Jul 2019WP/13893/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank's sale notice, holding that the writ court lacks jurisdiction as an effective alternative remedy exists under the statute via the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner was directed to approach the DRT.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to invoke statutory remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal if aggrieved by the auction sale notice.

Mantena Srinivasa Subrmanyam Raju Vs Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13893 of 2019

¶3

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶4

The prayer of the petitioner in this case reads as under:-

¶5

“… to issue a order a Writ Order or Direction more in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Tender-cumAuction for Sale of Secured Asset notice dated 27.06.2019 issued by the Respondent Bank seeking to conduct auction on 18.07.2019 in respect of Land to an extent of 250 square yards in Plot No.338 part in Sy.Nos.33, 34 (p), 35(p) and 36, 37, 38 and 39 situated at Ravindra Coop Housing Society Limited, GuttalaBegumpet Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to the Petitioner as being arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same.”

¶6

We find from the record that the earlier sale notice issued by the respondent ICICI Bank was subjected to challenge before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, by way of Securitization Application No.691 of 2017.

¶7

It appears that the sale proposed to be held earlier came to naught, be it for one reason or the other. The present challenge is now sought to be levelled against the fresh sale notice dated 27.6.2019 issued by the respondent Bank, whereby it proposes to conduct an auction sale on 18.7.2019.

¶8

As the petitioner has already approached the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of S.A.No.691 of 2017 in relation to the earlier sale notice, we find no reason as to why he should not adopt the same course if he is aggrieved by the subsequent sale notice. It is not open to the petitioner to now circumvent the effective alternative remedy provided to him under the statute on

¶9

SK, J & PKR, J W.P.No.13873 of 2019 Dt:09.7.2019

¶10

¶11

the ground that he already did so once in relation to an earlier cause of action.

¶12

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed on this short ground leaving it open to the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy available to him in accordance with law if he is aggrieved by the auction sale notice dated 27.6.2019 issued by the respondent Bank.

¶13

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand

¶14

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶15

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO
09 th July, 2019
Note:
Issue CC tomorrow.
B/o
dr

Mantena Srinivasa Subrmanyam Raju v. Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantena Srinivasa Subrmanyam Raju v. Authorized 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

M/s.Canara Bank Vs Union of India

M/s. Sls Properties, Vs M/s. Reliance Cellulose Products Limited

M/s.Canara Bank Vs Union of India

M/s Cura Technologies Limited Vs Union of India

Adam Bakers, Vs Syndicate Bank

M/s S v Developers Vs State Bank of India