Writ petition challenging dispossession of a petitioner-tenant via SARFAESI auction was dismissed as the court held that litigants cannot pursue parallel remedies against the same subject matter, directing the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEI/IBER TWO THOUSANO ANO TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO: 30956 OF 2021
Betwee n:
M/s Royal Restaurant & Bar, Represented by its Proprietor, K. Srinivas Reddy, S/o lndrasen Reddy, Aged 44 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o H. No.6-2-375, Sri Nagar Colony, N.G. College Back, Nalgonda District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RES,.NDENTS
Petition under Article226 of the constitutionof lndiapraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be pleased to issue a writ orderor direction, more particularlyone in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to set asidethe warrant dl.2\l1ol2021 in crl.M.P.No.23001 2021. appointing the4th respondent as an Advocate commissioner,who dispossessed the petitioner, thelease holder running M/s Royal Restaurantand Bar on 20t11t2021, of an extentof 502 sq. yards along with the built up area out of the property bearing No. 8-237 and8-23713is Sy.Nos.13,21 , 22 and 23, admeasuring lg0lSq.yardsorequivalenttolSSg,42Sq.mtrs,havingPlintharea2000Sq.Feet (Four sheeters) in GroundFloor, 4000 Sq. feet in First Floor, total Plinth area 6000 Sq.feetwithRCCRoof,situatedatBlock2,situatedatJil|elgudaoldVi|lage, Balapur Mandal,Ranga Reddy District, by declaringas illega|,arbitrary'contrary to theprovisionsof the sARFAESI Act and Rules framedthere underand in violation of Article 14,19 (1) (g) of the constitutionof lndia and settled principlesof law and consequentlydirecttherespondentsNo.l,4,5and6torestorethepossessionof the aboveproperty along with movable assets' stock of liquor etc 'forthwith'
ll2ll
/ /
tA No: 1 oF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1, 4, 5 and 6 to restore the possession of the property admeasuring 502 SQ. yards, with the built up area, out of the property bearing No. 8-237 and 8-23713 is Sy. Nos, 13,21 ,22 and 23, admeasuring 1901 Sq. yards or equivalent to 1589.42 Sq. mtrs, having Plinth area 2000 Sq. Feet (Four Sheeters) in Ground Floor, 4000 Sq. feet in First Floor, total Plinth area 6000 Sq. feet with RCC Roof, situated at Block 2, situated at Jillelguda old Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District along with movable assets, stock of liquor etc., forthwith, pending disposal of the main wril petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. NAMRATHA REDDY FOR
M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFTCES
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI SETHU MADHAVA RAO FOR SMT V. DYUMANI
Counsel for the Rebpondent Nos.2 to 6: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
AND
w.P.NO.309560F 2021
D Pe t o 'b e ri J u h
HeardMs NamrataReddy' leanredcounsel for the petitioner' Mr' Sethu MadhavaRao, learned counsel appearingfor Smt V Dyumani'learned counsel 't for therespondentNo 1* Union Bank of lndia
underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndia' 2.ln this Petition filed directionto the respondents forrestorationof petitionerhassoughtfor a possessionof the scheduleproperty.
r"' ' :^ rrT ^ l.nant of theschedule property 3.According to the petitioner' he is thetenant helongingto respondentNo 3RespcndentNo 2 availed financialassistance fromrespondentNo 1 -Union Bank of lndia lt may be mentioned that respondentNo 3 is a ptrdne|of respondent No 2 - firm' schedule '::t::*"' givenin mortgage For lailure to repay the loan' respondent No 1 - UnionBanK of lndiainitiated proceedingsunder the Securitisation and Reconstructiono{ FinanclalAssets and Enforcenlentof Securitylnterest Act' 2002 (briefly 'the SARFAESIAct' hereinafteo' ln this connection' possession noticeunCer Section 13(4)of the SARFAESIAct was issued' where-after'in exercise of the powers ccnferredunder bection14 of the SARFAESI Act' warrantwasrssuedfor taking overphysical possessionof the schedule property'and for auctionsale thereof' salewas heldtnwhicir resPondentNo 5 4.Thereafterauction Followingthe same the laredas the successful bidder' particiPatedandwas dec 22.032021in favouro{ salecertificatewas issued on salewas confirmed and resPondentNo 5 5 It isstated that respondentNo 5 in turn has sold the propertyin favour of resPondentNo'6 on 18 09 2021
I
6.Bethatasitmay,aggrievedbyitsdispossession'petltionerhasfiled S'A,No'20Tof2OlgbeforetheDebtsRecoveryTribunal.llatHyderabad (Tribunal). Likewise. respondentNos.2 and 3 have also filed s.A. No.31 3 of 2019 before the Tribunal
order as to costs.
5D/. T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUECOPY'
\
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:01 11212021
:.']
ORDER
W.P.No.30956 of2021
-i .i E STA 14.
o;
I t-, 09 DEC202I
3
-k
,rrf-c
DISMISSING THEWRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
c,^
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a protected tenant can seek simultaneous relief under Section 151 CPC and Article 226 of the Constitution of India against dispossessed property in SARFAESI proceedings.
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when the grievance regarding dispossession is already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
M/s Royal Restaurant & Bar
Union Bank of India
M/s Warner International
Dasari Sada Siva Reddy
Sri Ranga Nayakulu Varahagiri
M/s Suvan Constructions
Ujjal Bhuyan
P. Madhavidevi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
