Allowed

Mohammed Ikram Al Hashmi v. Talari Rajendra Prasad

Telangana HC4 Apr 2022WA/188/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ appeals filed by successful purchasers in three separate cases. The court held that it was the duty of the petitioner and the State Government to inform the single judge about third-party rights created via e-auction of attached properties. The original orders were set aside and matters remanded for hearing.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals are allowed. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Single Judge to pass appropriate order after hearing the appellants.

Mohammed Ikram Al Hashmi Vs Talari Rajendra Prasad — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

[/ONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NOS: 174, tl61, 188 ANp lel OE 29L?

¶8

wA NO.174 0F 2022

¶9

Writ Appeal under clause^'15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated 01 10212022 in W.P. No. 26102 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶10

Betwee n:

¶11

Mohammed lkram Al Hashmi, Sio. Late. Mohammed Hashmi, Age.26 years, occ. Business, Ri o. ,No. tt-i-iaOTzn:, f,rf-ii'Hrtt, S;;%;;"N;;;;: Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

AND ...APPEL LAN T/PETITION E R

¶13

lfl :,?ixij'e}1:ilRii;,Yi3';ffi,!1y"i::i,g:ij,S1)$X';6??.,{:i;l:";,u. Village,^putkat Mandit, sansireddy b;-siili:i;t;;#;l'

¶14

The State of Tela ngana, Re presented by its princi pal .,.,RESPONDENT/PETITIONSecretary, Home, ER Secreta ry, Hyderabad 3. The Co mmissioner of police, C vberabad, Com peient Authority under T.S,P .D.F.E.A. 1999 Commiss loner of Police, Cyberabad, pi '12, Old N/umbal High way, Next to Ca re Hos pital 2-48, Shri Sh yam Nagar, Telecom Nagar Exte nsion, Gachib owli, Hyd 4. the Branch Mana ger, HDFC Bank, Brancerabad, Telan shana,500032Sangaredd v IAN O:3 OF 2022 .,.RES PONDEN TS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 Petition under Section 151 CpC praying thatin the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in W.p.No.26102 of 2021 , dated. 01 /02/2022 Counsel for the Appellant : SRI K. VENUMAD HAV Counsel for Respondent No. 1; SRt N. RAMANADHAM Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No. 4: SRI D,SH|T BHATTACHARJEE

WA NO :161^{OF 2022}

Writ Appeal^{under clause 15 of the LettersPatent preferredagainst OrderDated} O1l[2l2l22in^{WP.No2606 9 oI 2021onthe file of the High Court'}

¶19

Between:

¶20

ileEffi [Oilli;3lft^{.'#H;f fl,?""::fi 3l?f-'&'?"sq[Fi.-:ii,:};:J;}

¶21

AND

¶22

;ill'**n+,'S:flg5trm"9t'i:i'ff;$'?-:;*,$iffi '"I,5::, The State of^{Telangana'representedby its Principal Secretary Home'}

¶23

; itp'ffi"iqil*y;l.gfill,;i ;5S,u:,;; : :,1

¶24

1 ro³ ..REspoNDENrs/RESpoNDENrs , !fiag^i*.:& ln IA N^o:30F2022 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} Petition^{under Section} the^{High Court may be Pleased to} the^{affidavitfiled in supportof the petition'} of 2021,^{daledOl lo2l2022} suspend^{the orders passedin W P No 26069}

¶25

HAV

¶26

Counselfor^{the Appellant: SRIK'YEIJUMAD} SRI^{J' P. SRtKANTH} counsel^{for ResPondent No' 1:} 2^{& 3: GP FOR HOME} counsel^{for ResPondent Nos'} c ounsel^{for Respondent No'} 4, SRI^{DISHITBHATTACHARJEE}

¶27

A^No:18B F 0 22 gainst^{the order dated} ::^{;J ji: ::ffi J;':;: ffi: ::1 ;} ^a^VeAfS, :;l;ffil,li,lffi: H"^ghmr,^{Afi,eo.fi" saoar} t^lr srii-\i?6H?X3:t"Bd r^{rr1. o*'' t t' tT toNER}

¶28

iiffi+'f"''**'

¶29

¶30

o*?. ,r,ur, Ralendra Prasad, S/o Late Chandraiah' A'qe 39 years' occ' BusinessiAqricurtrre,'H'"iiEtj]i"'^{ni" ptot t"to ito' Shvam RockApartment'} a"eir;groi,^{R.CPuram, Sangareddy} ....RESpoNDENr/pETtroNER

¶31

The State of^{Telangana, represented by its PrincipalSecretary Home'} Secretariat^{Building, Hvderabad}

¶32

The commission"|.^{oi F6ii.6.,cyberabad,competent Autho_rityunder .} T.S.^p.D F.E.A.^{r egg,' cJm;;issi6ne,oi potrce,cyberabad,P/1 2, Old lvumbat} Hiohwav. Next to care^{iloipiiii2-+4. shri Shyam Nagar,TelecomNagar} i:;1;;.i6; : oat'r'i^{uo*ti' Hvd'erabad,} Iela^nsana'500032

¶33

a. ine aiancl', I/anaser,^{Hdrc sanx,} ?.,fi35"t11t-?3,*trpoN,ENrs Nos. 1 ro 3

¶34

IA NO : 3 OF 2022

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated in}

¶36

the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} suspend the orders passed in W.P.No. 26094 ol 2021; daied.0110212022

¶37

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K. VENUMADHAV

¶38

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI N. RAMANADHAM

¶39

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Gp FOR HOME

¶40

Counsel for Respondent No. 4: SRt DISHTT BHATTACHARJEE

¶41

WAN o: 191 OF 2022

¶42

writ Appear under crause 15 0f the Letters patent preferred Against the order Dated 0110212022 in W.p. No. 26077 of 2021on the fite of the High Court.

¶43

Between:

¶44

AND

¶45

R":fi lff '?F,?llLnii";.'*Uj:i,:?,ffi ifl,iliif &.r_rffi ff ,ff ::::

¶46

I:[,Tl F1yb.?6: R/ o

¶47

2 "'rJ]s,r$flfl?i..r.Xs3i's3iiu!u,,li[,_,t4o,icurture, 3 $ffi ffi{;:fl^{l%?:Represented""";'';;;;t:'.',3$3r9,{ifii]+iai'-}

¶48

4 **u'ffi6;*,q6w3;6t'eir"''ri"'#tu"'

¶49

..RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS

¶50

1 TO 3

¶51

¶52

@,".n,,n.*erSection151CPcprayingthatinthecircumstanceSStatedin the^{affidavitfiled in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} suspend^{the orders passedin W P No' 26077ot2O21'dated O1to2l2o22'} Counsel^{for the Appellant: SRIK' VENUMADHAV}

¶53

Counsel^{for RespondentNo' 't: SRIN' RAMANADHAM} Counsel^{for Respondent Nos'2 & 3: GP FOR HOME} Counsel^{for Respondent No' 4: SRt DISHITBHATTACHARJEE}

¶54

The^{Courtmade the following: COMMON JUDGMENT}

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶59

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.A.Nos .L74. t 61 188 & L9l of 2022

¶60

COMMON JUDGMENT (Pet the Hon ble the Chiel Justice Salish Chdndn Shannal

¶61

Regard being had ro the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.

¶62

The facts of W.p.No.714 of 2022 are reproduced S under:-

¶63

The present writ. appeal is arising out of the order dated 01 .O2.2022 passed by the lelrned Single Judge ln W.P.No.26102 of 2021.

¶64

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred being aggrieved by the orders dated 07.06.2019, 16"09,2olg and 04.08.2021 which were passed under the provisions of the Telangana protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, I g99. The properties which were seized were subsequendy sold by way of e_auction and the factum of e-auction was very much within the knowledge of the State Government. For the reasons best known to the State Government, the factum of e-auction, by which third party rights were created in respect ol. the properties, was never

¶65

¶66

brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The order was delivered by the learned Single Judge on O1.O2.2O22, whereas e-auction took place on 23.10.2021. The writ appeal has been preferred by the successful purchaser and his contention, in all fairness, is that he should also have been heard by the learned Single Judge.

¶67

In the considered opinion of this Court, it was the duty of the writ petitioner as well as the State Government^{to bringto} the notice of the learned Single^{Judge that third partyrights} have been created by^{rvay of e-auction inrespect of the} properties which were attac.hed.

¶68

Learned counsel^{for the appellant has arguedbelore this} Court that^{after paying the entireamount'possessionof the} property was^{handed over to the successftll purchaserand the} appellant^{prays only for an opportunityol hearing before the} learned^SingleJudge'

¶69

The^{prayerof the appellant is a genuine prayer'}

¶70

' Resuitantly,^{the writ appealsare aliowedand the order} passed^{by the learned SingleJudge in the subjectwrit petitions} is set^{aside' The matters are remanded back to the learned} Single^{Judge to pass appropriate order after heariog the present}

appellants^{alsoThe present appellanls shall be free to file} appropriate^{applicationsfor impleadment before the learned} Single^{Judge' The partiesshallrernain present before the} learned^{Single Juclge on | 1' 04 2022 Officeis directedto list} the^{subject wrrt petitionsbcfore the learned Single Judgeon} l1-.04 '2022'

¶75

Pending^{misccllaneousappliceitrons'if any' shall st-and} closed.^{There shall be no orderas to.costs}

¶76

sD/-K.sRlNrvASA^RA; JOlNrBEGlsrRAR //rRUE coPY/t La) SECTION^OFFICER

¶77

'o',.^{an" Principal Secretary, Home'State of Telanga-naSecretary' Hyderabad'} l'+ss:;rullqru'"lri.:llrz":lfflH;:ls:'{'H{i,8ff^Mumba Hiohwav,^{Next to care-il'o't'diiJi z+ii' srtti snvbqil-lo^{'TelecomNagar} Exiension,^{Gachibowii,'ivi!*nia'ielangana'500032'}

¶78

The^{Branch rvrrn,g"t,"Fidicei;i' eranch Sangareddv'} 4. The^{Branchtvtanager,iit"biaZ"r"a"hchVikrampuri' Karkana'}

¶79

. if;:T'i?t#R,Lnrnur,^{HDFC Bank' Branch office'1-10-60/3' 3rd Floor'} - o;;;[; SrrvodaVa bomplex Secunderabad , , 6 The Section^{otri""', riii i(ol.l'b"eiice section'High Court for the Stateof}

¶80

, +f;53n"11i3.^{officer, writ posting Section, Hish courtfor the Stateof} Telanqana

¶81

o;; ic i;^{Sri K Venumadni"lgYg:?l?^L?Xj?,1,}

¶82

?. ?,13 3³ Ji"t'.8^{8 Fs'L'Jfl '.i} ru^{fl U,T E l} i{ip:l^{te or rer a n g a n a ro u rl} ii.o;; ccl; sriD.^{BhattacharjeS,Advocate-(oPUC)} t2.One CC to^{Sri J. P. Srikanth, Advocate (OPUU)}

¶83

13.Two CD Copies

¶84

One Spare Copy IVBC SW

URGENT

fl I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 04tO4tZO22

NOTE:

POST WRIT PETITIO
11.04.2022
1 6E Sl,,i7.!
b11
k
('
ooJ 21 APB 2U2
*
c JUDGMENT
WA NOS: 114,161, 1gg AND 191 OF 2022

¶91

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS,

¶92

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶93

h$"1 lb
k

Mohammed Ikram Al Hashmi v. Talari Rajendra Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ikram Al Hashmi v. Talari Rajendra Prasad

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

A.BalReddy Vs The State of Telangana and 9 others

Katam Praveen Kumar, Hyderabad and Another Vs Prl Secy, Municipal Admn and Urban Devt Dept, Hyd and 4 Others

Mandal Binoy Vs Prl.Secretary ( Mud) and 13 Others

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Vs K. Vittal Reddy

Shapuram Anil Vs Kanchana Srinivas and 3 others

Mohammed Ikram Al Hashmi Vs Bangla Shanker and 3 Others