Allowed

Sri. Manji Patel v. Indian Bank

Telangana HC3 Feb 2021WP/8654/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order by the Debts Recovery Tribunal issued under the SARFAESI Act.holding the writ petition inadmissible since an alternative remedy under Section 18 is available. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and raise his pleas before the Appellate Tribun

Sri. Manji Patel Vs Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 8654 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri. l,4anji Patel, S/o. Jetha Patel, Aged about 67 years, Occ B usiness H.No.11-9-133/1 (New) Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

lndian Bank, (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank,) l,4aruti Nagar Branch, Hyderabad Bl3l22l1l1, Shalimar Apartments, It4aruti Nagar, Yousufguda Road, Hyderabad - 500 038 Represented by its Authorised Officer

¶13

...RES'ONDENTS

¶14

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 writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Order Dt.01-06-2020 passed in SA No. 1311/2017 on the file of Honorable Debts Recovery Tribunal-2 Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also oppose to Article '14 of Constitution of lndia and consequently allow the SA No. 131112017 on the file of Honorable Debts Recovery Tribunal-2 Hyderabad.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the Advocate Commissioners Warrant issued in Crl. tr/P No 806/2017 on the file of Hon'ble ClVIr,4 Court, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and Notice of lntimation of Sale Dt 03-06-2020 under Rule 8(6) of the Sarfaesi Rules in respect of the schedule property till the disposal of the present Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. K. DESHPANDE

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. MEHER PRASAD, SC FOR INDIAN BANK The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER ,,

¶21

Writ Petition No.8654 OF 2O2O^.

¶22

ORDER: (per Ho n' ble Srt JtaliceA. R ai qshe lsc r k4 d!)

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandarnus declaring the order dated 01.06.2020 passed in S.A.No.131 I of 201 7 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to allow the S.A.No. 13 I I of 201 7.

¶24

lleard Sri G.K.Deshpande, Iearned counsel fbr the petitioner and Sri N. Meher Prasad, leamed Standing Counsel fbr the respondent Bank

¶25

Learned counsel fbr the petitioner lras not clisputed that thc ririt petitiorler has alternate rernedy under Section l8 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enfbrccrnent ol'Sccuritv lnterest -{ct. 2001 (tbr short'the SARFAESI Act') but he disputes the service of' possessron notlce.

¶26

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that they have also filed acknowledgment of I.A.No. 144 of 2019. He also submits that the petitioner has altemate remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶27

A perusal of the impugned order of the TribLrnal in S.A.No. l3ll ol 2017. dated 01.06.2020 goes to show that the Tribunal has^{given finding at} paragraph 15 olthe impugned order. which reads as fbllows:

¶28

"15. lhe applicant pleads that hc has not beett scned rritlt dcntand noticc and possession notice. l he respontlcnt bank placcd on rccord to shorv that deniand noticc has becn sencd on the applicant in person vide page Nos.20 to 27 ol'the nratcrial papcrs anticxed to the repl) staternent. 1'he respondcrtt bank also plerced on record prool-o1' sending possession notice b)' the rcgistered post.^-l hc postal reccipts are placed on rccord along with lA No. 144/20 19. lt is not thc case of the applicant that the possession notice has been sent to his incorrect

¶29

address. l-heretbre,^{it is to bc presuntedthat the possession notice} has been served on^{the applicant.The respondentbank also placed} on record proof ol affixture^{ol possessionnotice on the secured asset} and publication of the^{possession notice in two leadingnewspapers} vide pages 32, 35 and 36^{ol the materialpapers annexed to the reply} stateme;t. The^{possessionnotice is dared24.04.2017whereas} publication is effected on 30.04.2017^{and it shows that publication is} eftected well u'ithin^{the time stipulatedunder Rule 8(2) of the} Security lnterest^{(Enforcement)Rules,2002.Therefore, I am of the} vierv that the respondent^{bankissued possession noticein strict} corrpliance of^{the provisionsol'Rules8(l) and 8(2) of the Securily} I ntercst^{(Entirrcement)Rulcs.1002."}

¶30

The above tinding^{ol- thc Tribunal clearly' goes to show' that the} petitioner has been^sen,ed "rith possession notice^{dated 14.04.10I7} IIuuerer, lcarncd^{coutrselfirr the petitioner subtnits that actual delivcrl is} not atl-ected.

¶31

Since the^{petitionerhas alternate remedy under Section l8 of the} SARFAESI^{Act, the aspect ol service of noticecan also be raised befbre lhe} appellate fbrum,^{as such, we do not seeany reasonto entertainthe writ} petition bypassing the^{altemate remedy underSection 18 of the SARFAESI} Act

¶32

Accordingly, this^{Writ Petition is disposed of grantingliberty to the} petitioner to avail the^{altemate remedyunder Sectionl8 of the SARFAESI} Act and raise all^{the pleas raised herein before the AppellateTribunal.} l'here shall be^{no orderas to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous} applications. il any.^{pending in this writ Petition shallstand dismissed.}

¶33

SDI L.LAKSHMI BABU ASSTSTANT REGTSTII,AR

//TRUE COPY'

b,, SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Authorised Officer, lndian Bank, (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank,) I/aruti Nagar Branch, Hyderabad 8131221111 , Shalimar Apartments, Maruti Nagar, Yousufguda Road, Hyderabad - 500 038

¶38

2 One CC to Sri G. K. Deshpande, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

3 One CC to Sri N. Meher Prasad, SC for lndian Bank, Advocate IOPUCI 4 Two CD Copies

¶40

S m

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310212021

ORDER

{. s 1A
oo 0 g tEB 2021

.S P,AT

¶45

WP.No.8654 ol 2020

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE WP

¶47

WITHOUT COSTS

Sri. Manji Patel v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manji Patel v. Indian Bank

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

Union of India and 2 others Vs Sri.P Balarama Murthy

Union of India Vs G. Ganesh

M/s. Abc Engineering Works Vs State of Bank of India

Chennupati Vijaya Rani Vs State of Telangana.

Syeda Marifath Jahan Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

M/s. Skanda Gayatri Edible Oils Private Limited Vs Union Of India