Dismissed

Mr. Pentaiah Yerram v. Bank of India

Telangana HC1 Apr 2022WP/16714/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition seeking relief from a sale certificate registration and directing bank to close a loan account. The petition was withdrawn by the counsel, with leave to ventilate grievance in a pending Debt's Recovery Tribunal appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on withdrawal with liberty as prayed for. No order as to costs.

Mr. Pentaiah Yerram Vs Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 16714 aF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

'1 . Mr. Pentaiah Yerram, S/o Y. Srisailam, Aged about 45 Years, Occ.Business, Ri/o H.No.6-458/73, Dwarakanagar, Chintal, Qutbultapur, Hyderabad - 500 054.

¶8

Mrs. Yerram Sreedevi, Wo Pentaiah Yerram, Aged about 41 Years, Occ. House Wife, R/o H. No. 6-458/73, Dwarakanagar, Hyderabad - 500 054.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. Bank of lndia, Habsiguda Branch, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Situated at 4-7-2114, Nacharam Main Road, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad - 500 076.

¶12

Sri. Puli Venkat Reddy, R/o Mandadi Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District, AP.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass order or orders direction more particularly in the nature Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.^'1 bank not to register the sale certificate in favour of the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the E-Auction which was conducted 25.06.2021 in pursuance of the E-Auction sale notice dated 20.05.2021 as without following the procedure contemplated under the Act as illegal, null and void without following due process of law, Consequently direct the respondent bank to close the loan account considering payment of Rs.43,00,000i-, dated 17.03.2022 made by the petitioners and consequently direct Debt's Recovery Tribunal - ll, Hyderabad to dispose the case SA No. 98 of 2022 on merits.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto direct} the respondent No. 1 bank not to^{register the sale certificatein favour of the} respondent No. 2 in^{pursuance of the E-Auctionwhich was conducted 25.06.2021} in pursuance of the E-Auction sale notice^{dated20.O5.2021.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. PONNAM^{HAMSA DURGAFOR} SRI D.RAGHAVULU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHTIYAN

¶21

AND

¶22

THE HONOURABLEMRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.16714 of 2022

¶24

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice UjjolBhuyan)

¶25

Heard Ms. Ponnam Hamsa Durga, learned counsel representing Mr. D.Raghavulu, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶26

After hearing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners seek leave to withdraw the writ petition and to ventilate their grievance in S.A.No.98 of 2O2l filed by the petitioners which is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad.

¶27

In view of above, Writ Petition is dismissed on withdrawal with liberty as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶29

in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

To,

¶32

l. ?,XE S:r:%ff"? Rashavuru Advocate ropucl

¶33

One Spare Cbov. MRC

¶34

sd/-K.oNESlM I DEPUW REGISTRAR I SE N OFFICER

HIGH COURT

DATED:01104t2022

? c r\uB ?$[l

ORDER

WP.No.16714 of 2OZ2

DISII,IISSING THE wRtT PETITIoN AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶42

ta)
\y
,%
v

Mr. Pentaiah Yerram v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Pentaiah Yerram v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Sohail Ahmed and 2 others Vs Canfin Homes Limited and another

Mohd. Saifullah Vs Canfin Homes Limited (Sponsor Canara Bank) and Another

Mrs. Masiya Afreen and 2 others Vs Canfin Homes Limited and another

T.Raghu babu Vs Reserve Bank of India and another

M/s Kayjee Engineers Vs City Union Bank Limited

Navneet Agarwal Vs The State Bank of India