Disposed

K. Nagabhushanam and another v. M/s. Via Rd 2 and 2 others

Telangana HC4 Aug 2021WP/10428/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Debts Recovery Tribunal order appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the main suit application time-bound and allowed the existing interim order to continue pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide S.A. No. 100 of 2019 time-bound; interim order to continue.

K. Nagabhushanam and another Vs M/s. Via Rd 2 and 2… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A,RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶6

' A'\rD

¶7

THE HONOURABLE OR, JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 10428 OF 2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

K. Nagabhushanam, S/o. K. Sattaiah, Aged about 65^Years, Occ.^Businesss, R/o. D-t, Sadashiva Residency, Shanthideep Colony, Kakaguda, Karkhana, Secunderabad - 500 015.

¶11

P. Vandana Lakshmi, W/o. P. V. Kumar, Aged about⁴⁵ Years,^{Occ. Business,} F/o. 108, P.S.Nagar Colony, Behind Shums School, Masab Tank,^Hyderabad- 500 057.

¶12

.,.PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

M/s.VlARD2,Rep.byitsProprietorJ.Sailaja,W/o.J.Shobhana-dn,Agedabout 53 Years, Occ. Not kn6wn to the Petitioner,^{Rlo. B-2-120-1121P1& P2, Park} View Estate, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶15

Union Bank of lndia,^(Formally Known as^{Andhra Bank) SIr/E Nacharam Branch,} 9-24,Plot No.63, HI/T Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad.^{Rep. by its Authorised} Officer

¶16

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll, Rep.^{by its Registrar,Abids,Hyderabad.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be pleased} to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more^{particularlyin the natureof a Writ of} Mandamus declaring the order of the 3rd^{Respondentdated12.04.2021 made in I'A.} No.502 of 2021 in S.A. No.'100 of 2019 appointing^{AdvocateCommissioner for} handing over the immovables belonging to^{the 1st Respondent and further granting} liberty to the 1st Respondent to^point out any other^{movable properties that are lying} in the secured asset^premises, as being^{arbitrary,unco nstitutio nal andcontraryto} the provisions of SARFAESI Act and consequently^{set asidethe same}

¶19

fA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section^'l 51 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the order of the 3rd Respondent^{daled 12.04'2021 made in l.A. No.502 of} 2021 1n S.A. No.100 of 2019.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner.s:SRl.^{P SRI HARSHA REDDY}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 1: SRl. B. SANJAYKUMAR}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 3: M/S.V. DYUMANI}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.^2:

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

¶27

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKERR.EDDY} AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE^{SHAMEEM AKTH]ER}

¶28

Writ Petition^{No.1O428OF 2021}

¶29

This writ^{petition is filed challengingthe order of 3'd} respondent dt.72.04'2021^{inIA.No'502 of2027 in} SA.No.100 of^{2Ol9 appointing Advocate Commissioner for} handing over the^{moveableproperties belonginr3 to the 1't} respondent in the^{subject land and further in granting} liberty to the^{1't respondent topoint out any other} moveable^{propertiesthat are lying in the secured asset} premises.

¶30

Learned counsel^{for petitioners submit that after} passing orders in Crl.MP.No.74l2O79^{under Sc'ction 14 of} the SARFAESI^{Act, 2002, for appointment of the Advocate} Commissioner,^{the Advocate commissioner isstled notice to} 1't respondent^{on 22.08.2019 to vacate and handover the} vacant^{possessionof the premiseswithin 15 days, but as} the 1't respondent^{did not turn up the respondentbank} issued letter^{dt.28.11.2019 asking the 1't respondent to} vacate the^{premises.Since the 1't respondent failed to} remove the moveables,^{the respondent bankis;sued another} letter dt.08.01.2020^{to the 1't respondent sta:ing that they} have shifted the^{moveable inventory items of the 1't} respondent to M/s.Maxwell^{LogisticsPrivate lirnitedGodown}

\ \

<br>

situated near Suchitra Circle, Hyderabd, for preservation on monthly rental basis of Rs.10,000/- + GST per month and also stated that an amount of Rs.76,7O0l- was incurred towards packing, loading, unloading and transportation charges from the subject premises to M/s.Maxwell Logistics warehouse. It is further stated in the said letter that if he didn't turn up positively, they would take necessary steps to dispose of the said items in where it is as it is condiilon. Thereafter, the 1't respondent again filed IA,No,502 of 2OZl in SA.No.L00/2019 before the Tribunal seeking direction to the respondent bank to handover the moveable articles through Advocate Commissioner. Even though the tribunal admitted the aforesaid facts, it again allowed IA.No.502 of 202L appointing Advocate Commissioner, which is erroneous.

¶35

On the other hand learned counsel for 2"d respondent Bank submits .that the 1't respondent is a. chronic litigant and several times he approached this Court and a common order is passed by this Court in Wp.Nos,28035/20J.9 and 78L0/2020 on 03.07.2020 for disposal of the securitization application itself.

¶36

Learned counsel for 1't respondent submits that since several moveable properties were lying in the subject premises and the same were not handed over by the 2^d

¶37

¶38

t ,

¶39

respondent Bank, present application is filed, as such, no exceptlon can be taken.

¶40

In this case it is to be seen that the fact of iniUation of proceedings under Section 14 of the Act against the 1't respondent is not disputed by the Tribunal. The fact that conducting of panchanama on 27.O9.2019, to n,hich the 1.t respondent is the signatory is also not disputed, The letters addressed by thb respondent bank to the 1't res;pondent on 28.L1.2019 and 08.01.2020 requesting the 1't respondent to vacate the subject premises were also not disputed. Even though all these facts are admitted, the Tribunal agaln appointed Advocate Commissioner.

¶41

Since it is stated by all the counsel that the main SA itself is coming up for arguments on 11.10.2C21 and the respondent bank as well as auction purchasers filed wrltten arguments in the SA before the Tribunal, and that the respondent Bank already issued letters to the 1't respondent to vacate the premises on 28.11.2019 and 08.01.2020, in order to avoid further complexit'7, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition is to be disposed of directing the Tribunal to decide S,.No,100 of 2019 in a time bound manner.

¶42

In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Tribunal to decide

i I I

SA,No,100 of 2019 in a tlme bound manner. Pending disposal of SA, interim order granted on 20,04,2021 shall continue. However, it is open for the parties to raise all their contentions before the Tribunal. No order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶48

pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶49

SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( tin

¶50

SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

1 . The Proprietor, M/s. VIA RD 2, J. Sailaja, W/o. J. Shobhanadri,^Fl/o. 8-2-1201121P1 &P2,Park View Estate, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶53

The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of lndia,^{(Formally Known as AndhraBank)} SIME Nacharam Branch, 9-24,Plol No.63, HMT^{Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad.}

¶54

The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll,^{Abids,Hyderabad.}

¶55

One CC to Sri. P Sri Harsha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

One CC to Sri. B. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to M/s. Dyumani, Advocate^(OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies. 8. One Spare Copy.

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/08/2021

ORDER

WP.No.10428 of 2O21

0
$E S14
Y
.) \
oo)a' 0 7 A.ljG202l t;,
<<

¶64

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶65

72U

K. Nagabhushanam and another v. M/s. Via Rd 2 and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Nagabhushanam and another v. M/s. Via Rd 2 and 2 others

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

Vodde Hanmanth Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Agarwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Lakshmi Vilas Bank

Mohd Moin Vs The State of Telangana

R.K Polymers Vs Prithvi Asset Reconstruction And Securitization Company Limited

Spider Photo Studio and 5 Others Vs Prthvi Asset reconstruction And Securitisation company Limited (Paras) and Another

Dappu Babu Rao Vs Reserve Bank of India and another