Dismissed

M/s.Samriddhi Petro Products Private Ltd. v. The South Indian Bank Ltd.

Telangana HC20 Dec 2021WP/34565/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the non-disposal of SA No. 13 of 2021 by DRT-I, Hyderabad, the High Court declined to order redelivery of possession of secured assets, directing the petitioner to seek an expedited hearing before the Tribunal for their pending Securitisation Application instead.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move jurisdictional Tribunal for expedited hearing of Securitisation Application; no order for redelivery of possession.

M/s.Samriddhi Petro Products Private Ltd. Vs The South… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE.OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Speciat Originat .turisaiJionl"^..

¶3

IUONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶6

THE HoN,BLE srvrr.rOlIIce P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT P ETtTtoN NO. 34565 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s samriddhi^petro products private Ltd, A company incorporated under rndian companies Act havino irc negisieied'ciriiL- ,i'"alji No.33B, Road No. 23lA Jubtiee Hils, Hyderabai-Soooa"s iep"by ii" A?r,iiir"i .ignrto.i

¶10

AND

¶11

,..PETITIONER

¶12

1' The South rndian Bank Ltd,.repby its Authorised officer Door No.4-1-8gg, Lara ll, Hyderabad Main Branch,'iA6iOil O"."i.-"p]"rr, Titak Road, Abids p.O. Hyderabad - 500 001

¶13

ThlS^outh lndian Bank Ltd,rep.by its IVID and cEo r.B.Road, Ivrachine euarters THRISSUR-680001 Kerala Stdte'

¶14

It/s.L-Manisha, Advocate.-commissioner Frat No.402,Brock-1, Green Terrace Apartments, Bandlaguda X Roads trlagoie, Flyier;ad_500068

¶15

a. v{., Abhinava Fine chemicars..a R^egistered partnership firm, havinq its office at 9-941s7,2ND floor, Ra,mchander si"ngh Coronv, B;;;p;l,"iy,i.iiXd!"0:so55ez rep.by its Partner p. tr,,4allesham

¶16

8.. Anand .Yadav, S/o. .8. . Narsing. Rao, Aged 40 years, R/o. H.No. 5-5_83, J.J.Nagar, Yaprat, t,4atkajgjri, SecuriderJbiO_SOOOAz

¶17

K. Balamallesh, S/o. K,Satyana-rayana Aged. 33 years, R/o. H.No. 6_33/1C, Jeedimefla (v), euthubuilpurlm) tVeldhcat v"at[a;irri bistrici-sooOss

¶18

A. Laxma Reddy, S/o. A. Krishna.npgOy, Aged 47.years, R:/o. H,No. 6_8_144, Near Raitwav station, Tempte Atwat, nrwdr, v"eorrcar Milr,r-ibiri oisiiiii:so"otir s '

¶19

I Nerella Namdev subba Rao, S/o. Late sri. N. seetharamaiah, Aged 63 vears. r/o Flat No. T-2, Sri Bataii Towers, Near.Vidya C"l;g;, Cfiii;ir,'prli *Xrril6[i;i'Jt, Andhra Pradesh- 523'1 55

¶20

Nerella Dilip Kumar, s/o. Namdev subba Rao, Aqed about 36 years, occ.pvt lmployee,^{Resident of H.NO. 7-1.2Ot94,plot r.to.g+]} frip,iiilJr; n;";;prr, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy Oistiict_SdZOgi^'

¶21

10.Nerella,lathi.l{r.fg,S/o. NamdevSubba Rao, Aged about 34 vears, r/o Ftat r\o. | -2, ii, Baraii rowers, Near Vidya college, chirala-52315-5 prdkasham District, Andhra Pradesh

¶22

,..RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the non disposal of lA No. 159 of 2021 to lA No. 161 lo 2021 sA No. 13 of 2021 before Debt Recovery Tribunal - I , Hyderabad as illegal; arbitrary, violative Articles 14, 19,21 and 300 A of the constitution of lndia, provisions of sARFAESI Act, lndian contract Act, Transfer of Property Act and the action of the Respondent No.1 and 2

¶24

¶25

in disPossessing^{the Petitionerfrom Plot No'497admeasuring 805 sq' yardsin} Jeedimetla^Village' Survey No.^{240 and 241, Plol NO'7 at Subhashnagar'} Malkajgiri^{District (MS,HSD, DisPenserUnlts} QutbullaPur^{Mandal' Medchal} together^{with the requisite tanks'underground' electricalroom, toilets constructed} tn lOOO sq.^{yards in Plot NO s 497 and 498'SurveyNO. 240 and241 , Subhashnagar} Malkajgiri^District)AS Jeedimetla^{Villae, QutbullapurI'4andal'Medchal} Colony illegal, arbitrarY^{and issue consequential direction directingthe respondents1 and 2} to redeliver^{possession of the same to the petitioner pending disPosalof SA NO 13} of 2021 before^{DRT - l, HYderabad'}

¶26

lA NO:1^{oF 2021}

¶27

Petition under^{Sectlon 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{fired in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} theRespondentNo.land2toredeliverthepossessionofPlotNo.4gTadmeasuring 805 sq.^{yards in SurveyNo' 240 and241} '^{Plot NO 7 at Subhashnagar'Jeedimetla} Village,QutbullapurManctal,Medchal.MalkajgiriDistrict(MS,HSD,DispenserUnits togetherwiththerequisitetanks,underground,electricalroom,toiletsconstructedin 1 000 sq.^{yards in PlotNO s 497 and 498' SurveyNO' 240 and241 ' Subhashnagar} Colony - l,^{Jeedimetla Villae,QutbullapurMandal' Medchal - MalkajgiriDistrict).} l pending disposal^{of the abovewrit petition}

¶28

IA NO: 2^{oF 2021}

¶29

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{fired in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the respondent^{No. 4 to producethe documentsset out in lA No 160/2021 in SA No'} 13t2021^{pendingdisposal of the W P'}

¶30

lA NO: 3 F20 1

¶31

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be preasedto direct} therespondentNo.land2toproducethedocumentsSetoutinlANo.l6,l/2021in SA No. 13/2021^{pendingdisposal of the abovewrit petition'}

¶32

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI J' PRABHAKAR'SENIOR COUNSELFOR} SRI G. V, B.^{SANTHOSH KUMAR}

¶33

Counsel forthe^{Respondent Nos'1 & 2: SRI AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA'} S.C. FOR SOUTH^{INDIAN BANKLIMITED}

¶34

Counsel forthe^{Respondent Nos. 3 to 10: ..}

¶35

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶36

¶37

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAT BHUYAN AND

¶38

HONOURABLE SMTJUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶39

W.P.No 34 565 of 2027

¶40

ORDER: (Per Hon'lth Si lutice Ulia/ Bhalan)

¶41

L Heard Mr, J.Prabhakar, leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ambadipudi Saq.anarayana, learned counsel for South Indian Bank Limited, respondens No.1 and 2 (for short 'the Bank).

¶42

Petitioner is the lessor of the secured asset, which has been mortgaged by respondent No.4 to respondent No.1, while availing loan amount.

¶43

From the materials on record, vre find that petirioner had earlier approached this Coun by filing \fl.P.No.1120 of 2027 seeking a direction to the Bank not to take over phpical possession of the secured asset. This Coun byorder dated A9.A2.2021, disposed of the said \flrit Petition by directing the Bank to permit the petitioner to sell as/aythe petroleum products in the subject premises within two weeia whereafter, petitioner should redeliver the possession of the schedule properry to the Bank It was clarified that rhe same would be subject to orders that may be passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal) in the Securitisation AppJication, v*rich the petitioner proposed to file. Petitioner was, accordingly, granted libertyto avail the altemative remedy.

¶44

,')..

¶45

It is submitted that following the aforesaid order, petitioner has filed Securitisation Application before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstr-r,rction of Financial fusets and Enforcement of Securitylnterest Act, 2aa2 $or short 'the SARFAESI Act), which has been registered as S.ANo.13 of 2a2,. Petitioner has also filed InterlocutoryApplication Nos.159 to 161 of 202linthe said SA, vrhich were dismisse d on 17 .02.2021.

¶46

kamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that as on date, there is no Presiding Officer of the Tribunal as a result of which, there is not much progress in S.ANo.13 ol 2021. He submits that the present situation is not in the interest of 4ny o{ the panies. Therefore, possession of the secured asser may be handed over to the petitioner with permission to operate the petroleum ourler situared therein.

¶47

6.^lil/e are afraid we can pass such order at this stage in this proceeding. In the earlier round of litigation, this C.oun had allowed the petitioner to sell the petroleum products, which were stored in the secured asset, for a limited period of rwo weeks with the direction that thereafter, petitioner should redeliver possession of the schedule properqrto the Bank \7trat the petitioner is seeking now, if allowed, may virtually amount to reviewing the earlier order passed by this Coun. 'ff/hen the petitioner has availed the alternative remedy as per the liberry granted by this Court, we fail to undentand as to how in /subsequent proceeding, we can issue directions, which may mn contraryto the directions of this C.oun rendered supra.

::3:;

Ilowever, we are of rhe view thar S.ANo.1 3 of 2021,, ftled by the petitioner needs ro be heard and decided expedftiousiy, fu and when the Presiding Officer is appointed, petirioner may move rhe jurisdictional Tribunal for an early and out of turn hearing of its Securitisation Application, in which the event, Tribunal may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Beyond this, no order is called for.

¶52

Wrir Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. \7e, however, make it clear that notwirhstanding the present order as well as pendency of S.ANo.13 of.202t, it is open to the parties concemed to strive for and arive atran amicable settlernent. Related interim application stands disposed of.

¶53

No costs.

¶54

SD/.T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6D

¶55

SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To,

¶57

l.TheAuthorisedofficer,SouthlndianBankLtd,Dooll)1.o,.4-1-898,Lalall' ffyOeiaOaO frrfaln^{aranCn',(AOiOs)Oasis Plaza,TilakRoad,AbidsP.O. Hyderabad} - 500 001

¶58

2.TheSouthlndianBankLtd,rep.byitsMDandCEoT.B.Road,MachineQuarters THRISSUR-680001^{Kerala State}

¶59

One CC to Sri^{G. V. B. SanthoshKumar,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶60

4.oneCCtoSriAmbadipudiSatyanarayana,s.C,forSouthlndianBankLimited, loPUCl

¶61

Two CD^CoPies.

¶62

One SPare^CoPY.

-^!.'.)-L Sts

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011212021

,6*=\3
i i-'
t5 JAti2oZ i
l;r

¶68

ORDER

¶69

WP.No.34565 of 2021

¶70

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

(

M/s.Samriddhi Petro Products Private Ltd. v. The South Indian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Samriddhi Petro Products Private Ltd. v. The South Indian Bank Ltd.

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

Mr. Syed Azeem Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Madhavaram Ramakanth Vs Indian Bank and 3 others

M/s Mahadweep Pharma Vs Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.

M.Anji Reddy and Another Vs The State Bank of India (formerly State Bank of Patiala) and Another

M/s.Ind Barath Energies Limited Vs The Uco Bank

Mr. Gourishetty Sai Varun Vs Indian Overseas Bank and 2 others