Challenge to a Debt Recovery Tribunal sale proclamation and e-auction of mortgaged agricultural land, and to the Tribunal's refusal to condone a 1232-day delay in setting aside the ex parte decree. The High Court declined to interfere, citing the petitioner's conduct and the statutory alternative remedies of appeal available to him.
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 STATEOFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRDDAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICEP. SREE SUDHA
WRIT PETITION Nos.23048and 34148 of 2021
WRIT PETITION NO: 23048 oF2021
Between:
[,4r.V.Laxma Reddy, S/o.LateV.VenkatReddyAged 50 years' -Occ:farmer, Ryo.H.No.4-71, PoihireddyVillage, Kulcharam[.4rndal, NledakDistric!502109.
.,,PETITIONER
AND
...RES'ONDENTS
Petition under Article226 ofthe Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the circumstances slated in the affidavitfiled therewith,lhe High Court maybe pleased to issue writ, order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare theproclamations of sale noticedated0110712021 passed in R.P.No.281 of 2018 in O.A.No.655/2017by the 1sr respondent without giving notice and opportunity to thepetitioner asillegal,arbitrary, unconstitutional, withoutfollowing due procedure of law and contraryto provisions of the SARFEISI Act, 2002 andconsequentlysetaside the same' lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section151 CPC prayingthatin lhe circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,lhe High Court may be pleasedto stay of all furtherproceedings including 3 issuance of sale certificatein favour of
"4
l
thirdparty in pursuance of the proclamationsof sale daled 0110712021passedin R.P.No.281of2018ino.A'No.655/20lTbythelStrespondentinrespectofthe agriculturallandadmeasuring Ac 0'30guntas in survey No 149/1 4711' Ac020 Guntas in surveyno.148/302/1, Ac3OOGuntasin SurveyNo 148i315/1 ' Ac' 0.08 Guntas inSurvey No.219,Ae O 26 Guntas in Survey No 218'Ac 0 28 Guntas insurveyNo.53/1 , Ac 1'12 Guntas in SurveyNo 54/1' Ac 0'20 Guntasin Survey No.66/A/1 ,Ac.0.05 1/4 Guntas in survey No 1O4i AA/ 1' Ac 0 1 5 Guntas in SurveyNo. 181/A/1 and Ac' O17 Guntas in Survey No'237/1 total admeasuringAc,8.21 114 Guntas, situatedat Pothireddypally Village,Kulcharam l\i'landal, lvledakDistrict, pending disposalof the abovewrit petition'
IAN O: 2 OF2021
Between:
lndian OverseasBank'I\4edakBranch, H No l-3-78/ 1' First Fl.oor'Ramalayam bir.fiijrJi"uiir-n;ro.i',reii-sozt to Rep bv its Authorizedofricer'
Petitioner/R-2
AND
(Resoondent No.3 is impleaded asper Court Order dated2811012021vide l A' ili.5-ot zOztin W.P No.23048 ol 2021 </sup> ...RespondenURespondentNo.1
Petition underSection 151 CPC prayingthat in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavitfiledin supportof lhe petilion, theHigh courtmay be pleasedto vacate theinterimordersdaled 22tgl2o21 passedin lA No lof 2021 in the above W.P.
IAN O: 4 OF2021
Between:
Eedula VamsiKrishna Reddy, Sio Sri E Kasi Reddy' aged about 29 YearsOcc: Eftffi";,'Rl"oruo.ii-rzs'#errppisado'Uppal' Hvdeiabad - 500 03e'
...Petitioner/ProposedRespondent No'3
AND
...Respondent/ Petitioner
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 vacate lhe interim stay passed by this Hon'ble Court on 22.O9.2021 in l.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.23048 of 2021 .
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K.R. SUNIL KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI MADANMOHAN RAO, SENIOR COUNEL FOR SRI G. RANGAIAH
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CH. SIVA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO:34148 OF 2021
Between:
lvlr.V.Laxma Redd v R/o.H.No.4-71, Pot h, ireddyS/o. Village, Kulcharam Mandal,Late V.Venkat ReddyAged lvledak District-5021 09.50 years, Occ. former, ...PETITION ER
AND
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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the orders daled Ogl11l2O21passed in 1.A.No.73212021
F--''.
/
,
in N/l.A.l.R No.356/ 2021 in O.A.No.655/2017by lhe Hon'ble PresidingOfficer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Hyderabad,without giving notice andopportunity to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without following dueprocedure of law and contrary toprovisions of theRDB Act,1993 and consequentty setaside the same.
lA NO: 1 oF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to allow thepetitionerto paythe due amount,pending disposal of the above writpetition.
lA NO: 1 oF 2022
Between:
Mr.V.Laxma Redd v RYo.H.No.4-71, Pot h, ireddyS/o. Village, Kulcharam Mandal, Medak District-so2109.Late V.Venkat ReddyAged50 years, Occ.former, ...Petitioner/Petitioner
AND
...Respondent No.3/Proposed Respondent
Petition under Rule 16-A of WritProceedingsRules, prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedin support of the petition,the HighCou( may bepleased topermit thepetitioner toimpleadtheproposed respondentas respondent No.3 in the W.P.No.34148 ol20?1 aswellas in l.As.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K.R.SUNIL KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.1:NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: COMMONORDER
V 7
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHITYAN AND THE HON'BLESMT JUSTICE P. SREESUDHA
W.P.No.23O48OF 2021
&
W.P.No.3414 8 0F2021
COMMON JU DGMENTANDORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri JusriceUjia lBhuyan)
Heard Mr. SunilKumar,Learned counsel forthe petitioner; Mr. MadanmohanRao, learned senior counselfor respondent -lndian Overseas Bank; and Mr'Deepak Bhattacharjee,learned seniorcounselfor theauction purchaser.
W.P.No.23048 of 2O2lt
2 This writpetitionhasbeen filed by Mr' V'LaxmaReddy as thepetitioner seekinga declaration that sale notice dated Ol.O7 .2021issuedby the first respondentis illegal and void and consequentlyto quash the same'
3 Be it statedthat respondent No 1 is RecoveryOfficer of Debts RecoveryTribunal-1, Hyderabad (Tribunal)'
4 According tothe petitionerhe had borrowed'an amount of Rs. 18,00,000-00from respondent No 2-lndianOverseas Bank towhich his mother was the guarantor' The loan was sanctionedon 27 .05.2014'For obtaining the loan' guarantor mortgaged theschedulepropertyof whichshe was the absoltrte owner.Guarantor died ot 24 '01'2017
2
5 For various reasons petitioner fell on bad times and suffered huge loss in his business. As a result, he could not pay the loa-n repayment insta.llments regularly.
6 Second respondent filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks ancl Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (briefly,,,the 1993 Act,, hereinafter) before the Tribunal for recovery of an amount of Rs.26,06,510_ 00 against the petitioner. The same was registered as O.A.No.655 of 2O17.It is stated that Tribuna_l passed an order on 19.04.2018 setting the defendant (petitioner) ex parte arld thereafter decreed the original application on 07.06.201g for an amount of Rs.26,06,510-00 with future interest at the rate of 15.25o/o p.a. from the date of application till the date oI realization and also directed issuance of recovery certificate.
6.1 According to the petitioner, he did not receive any notice from the Tribunat. Notwithstanding the above, Tribunal had passed an order on 19.04.2O18 deciding to proceed against the petitioner ex parte in O.A.No.65S of 2OlT .
7 Following the decree of the Tribunal, recovery proceedings being R.P.No.281 of 201g have been initiated by the first respondent. In connection with R.p.No.2gl of 20lg e- auction was conducted on 25.08.2021, r,rhich the petitioner came to know only subsequently.
I
8 Petitioner filed an applicationbeforethe Tribunaifor setting aside the exparte orderdated 19.04'2018in O.A.No.655 of 2017.Since there was delay in filing such application, apetitionfor condonation of delay was alsofi1ed. It is stated that the said applicationsare pending.
9 Petitioner had approachedrespondent No.2 along with bank drafts for amountsofRs.18,00,000-00and Rs. 15,00,000-00 respectively.But respondentNo.2refusedto accept the same. Itis, under such circumstancesthat the present writ petition has been filed.
10 Counter affidavithas been filed by respondentNo'2 First respondent initiatedrecovery proceedings inR.P'No'281 of 2018 for recovery of thecertificateamount of Rs.29,27,314-00 with future interest asperrecovery certificatedated 07.06.2018. Demandnoticedated 77'07.2018 was issued to the certificate debtor(petitioner)'As the petitioner failedto deposit any amount,recovery proceedings were continued against the mortgagedproperty.Proclamationof sale was issued on Ol.O7.2O2lfixing e-auctionsale on 25'08'2027 for sale of immovableproperty describedin the schedule of the recovery certificate.The said notice was duly served upon the petitioner, published in newspapersin Telugu and English on I 15.07.2021 and affixedat a conspicuous place of the schedule property.
I
4
11 In the e-auction held on 25.08.2021 nine bidders had participated out of whom Sri Eedula Vamsi Krishna Reddy (third respondent) was declared as the successful bidder at his bid amount of Rs. 1,27,00,000-00 against reserve price of Rs.56,OO,O0O-00. Third respondent had deposited the entire sale amount within the stipulated time.
12 Answering respondent has also taken up the grounds that petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the i993 Act besides having an option to approach the first respondent under Rule 60 of the II Schedule to the Income 'i'ax Act, 196 1 .
I
5
I
I
14 Petitioner has filed reply to the counteraffidavit filedby the second respondent contending that he had aright of redemption which is his absoluteright.
15 Respondent No.3 i.e. the auctionpurchaser got himself subsequently impleaded and thereaJterhasfiled an affidavit'It is stated that respondent No.2had filed O.A.No.655of 2Ol7 before the Tribunal for recovery of duesagainst the petitioner whereafter it obtained recovery certificate.For executionof the recovery certificate in R.P.No.281 of2018 in O.A.No.655of 2017, first respondent had issuedsale proclamationdated Ol.O7 .2021 to sell the mortgagedproperty.Sale was heldon 25.O8.2021 by e-auction. Reserveprice of the schedule property was fixed at Rs.56,00,000-00'
16 Third respondent was declaredas the highest bidder at his bid amount ofRs. 1,27,00,000-00. Third respondent deposited 25% including earnestmoneydeposit on 26.08.2027 and the remaining7 5o/o on 07.09.202L receiptof whichhas been acknowledged.
17 After referring to variousprovisionsof the 1993 Act, third respondent contends thatthe auctionsalewas in accordance with law and does not suffer fromany infirmity.Therefore, on merit as well as for notavailing the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the1993 Act, third respondent seeks dismissal of the .r'ritpetition.
6
\
W.P.No.34148 OF 2021
18 Petitioner V.Laxma Reddy, has thereaJter filed the second writ petition for quashing of order dated 09.1 1.2021 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (Tribunal) in I.A.No.732 of 2O2l in MAIR No.356 of 2O2t in O.A.No.6S5 of 2017.
19 It is stated that respondent No.2 Indian Overseas Bank filed O.A.No.655 of 2OI7 before the Tribunal for recovery of arr amount of Rs.26,06,510-00 plus interest from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he did not receive aiy summons from the Tribunal and consequently had no knowledge about the proceedings in O.A.No.655 of 2017. As a result, Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the petitioner, vide order dated 79.04.2078 and decreed O.A.No.655 of 2Ol7 ex parte on 07.06.2018. Following the above, recovery proceedings were initiated in R.P.No.2g1 0f 2018.
20 When the petitioner carne across certain persons from the village on 26.O8.20y,, he came to know that the schedule property was auction sold on 25.08.2021 by fixing rhe reserve price at Rs.56,OO,OO0-00, though according to the petitioner, the market value of the schedule property would be more than Rs.2.50 crores.
21 Faced with such a situation, petitioner filed a petition on O2.O9.2O21 before the Tribunal under Section 22 (2) (h) of the
I
7
1993 Act to set aside the ex parte order dated 19.04.201g and to allow the petitioner to contest O.A.No.655 of 2Ol7 on merit, being MAIR No.356 of 202 1 Since there was delay of 1232 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 19.04.018, petitioner filed an application for condonation of the said delay which was registered as I.A.No.732 of 2021. By the docket order dated 09.11.2021, Tribunal took the view that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the i.A.No.732 of 2021. Resultantly, the petition to set aside the order dated 19.O4.2018 came to be rejected.
22 Aggrieved, petitioner has filed Writ petition No.34148 of 2o21for quashing the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2021.
23 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale notice issued for auction sale of the schedule property dated Ol.O7 .2027 was not in accordance with law. That apart, petitioner was in the dark about the proceedings in O.A.No.655 of 2O17. Tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. Since the decree was passed ex parte substantive rights of the petitioner have been extinguished without hearing. Even at this stage, petitioner is ready to pay 50% of the outstanding dues. Though - petitioner approached respondent No.2 by two demand drafts of Rs. 18.00 lakhs and Rs.15.00 lakhs respectively, respondent No.2 did not accept the same. When the petitioner approached
\
8
this Court assailing the sale notice dated 01.07.2021, this Court passed an interim order on 22.09.2021 staying confirmation of sale.
24 Learned counsel for the respondents, have, however, supported the docket order dated 09.ll.2O2l of the Tribunal. According to them, petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings before the Tribunai. Petitioner had taken recourse to evasion to delay the proceedings. Therefore, very belatedly he approached the Tribunal for setting aside the order dated 19.04.2018 deciding to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. Tribunal rightly did not condone the delay and dismissed the I.A.
25 Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.
26 At the outset, we may advert to the docket order dated 09.11,.2021 passed by the Tribunal dismissing I.A.No.732 of 2021 flled by the petitioner for revival of O.A.No.655 of 2017. The same was contested by the respondent bank. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, Tribunal framed the issue for consideration as to whether petitioner had made out sufficient cause to condone the delay on 1232 days in filing the related application for setting aside t/ the order dated 19.04.2018 deciding toproceed exparte
I,
9
V
against thepetitionerin O.A'No'655of 2Ol7 'Reievant portion ofthe orderdated 09.11.2021 is extracted hereunder:
I
"On perusal of the record'it is clealthat in the aboveO A' sent to the Defendartswerereturnedand paper p,]Uti"rtio.t "r--on" was ta-kenon the defendantsarrd when there was no i"p*"."o,i"",the delendantswere set expa-rte and. basing on the .uia".,". hled bythe RespondentBank and materialdocuments filed, the tritunalallowid theO A and subsequentlyrecovery ptr".Ji"g" were initiatedby the RecoveryOfficer in RP 281/ 18 noticeswereissued followed by Forml6Form i., -t i.f,, i"-rrd 16 & 17 were sentby RPAD andwere duly servedon the d"frrrd^r,t"aldthe balka-lsoafhxedthe said notices at the scheduleproperty. In view of the above' itis evidenttllat the petitioner is very wellawale of theproceedingsofHon'ble iribunal includingattachmentald saleof thesecured asset as tir. p.,iri""".himlelfwas present at the securedasset at the time oJ belated ^in*i"g stagethe said notices tocondone ard the now approached huge delay. this of. Tribunal 1232days'at a purttrermore] the petitioner has failed to explainthe hugedelay much less, tltereasonsfor condoning the huge delay. of 1232 days in f,fittg th"set asidepetition'Moreover-'the petitioner as lega] heir oi DefendantNo.2, deceasedv Padmamma is alreadyon record asdefendant uo iin O a proceedings and as borrower in ;;;;";t i""po.,t..,i proceedings,Bank 'about intentionatlvthedeath never. of his informed motherSmt'the ilra-u--u, DefendantNo 2 and whent}le secured assetwas already sold byRecoveryOfhcer in recwery proceedingsand-3d party interest-iscrated over ttle schedule property'approached it i"i.iUrt rtonly to drag on tlte proceedings -aldmr:ch less' not explained alyvalid..."-o"" to condonethe huge delay of 1232 A-"y" fnviewof theabove, I concurwith the contentionof the n"ipo.,a..,t Barkthat the Petitioner hasnotmade out anycase ioi io.ao.,l.gthe delay,as Demandnotice' Form I6 & 17 issued tJ ttt" n".or:.,yOfficer have been dtrlyserved on thepetitioner "i-rdth. ""idnoiices have been allxedon the schedule propertyin theprocess of recoveryproceedings' In view of theabovefacts and circumstances of the case' I am of the consideredopinionthat the presentpetitionis filed only to delay arld frustratethe recovery proceeding-sand there is no sullicient causeto condonethe huge delayof i232 days andas such thel.A is liable to be dismissed' Accordirrgly, l.A732l2lis dismissedas devoid of merits" 27 From aperusalof the above, it is seen that summonsin O.A.No.655of 2Ol7 were issuedto the defendants But those were returned,whereafternotices were servedupon the petitioner by way ofsubstitutedservice through newspaper ,r' publication. When there was no representationeven thereafter onbehalf of the petitioner,Tribunal decidedto
10
proceed ex parte. On the basis of the evidence tendered by respondent No.2, Indian Overseas Bank, and on the materia.ls on record, Tribunal allowed O.A.No.655 of 2077 whereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated by the Recovery Officer in R.P.No.281 of 2018 in which demand notices were issued. In this connection, Form.Nos.16 and 17 were sent by registered post with acknowledgement due vvhich were duly served upon the defendant (petitioner). That apart, respondent No.2 had also affixed the said notices at the schedule property. In such circumstances, Tribunal took the view that petitioner was well aware of the proceedings including attachment and sale of the secured asset. Petitioner himself was present at the secured asset at the time of affixing the said notices. Notwithstanding the above, petitioner has approached the Tribunal very belatedly, the delay being of 1232 days which was not at all explajned. That apart, petitioner as legal heir of defendant No.2 (deceased V.Padmamma) was already on record as defendant No.1 in O.A.No.655 ol 2017. Agreeing with the contention of respondent No.2, Tribunal held that petitioner had not made out any case for condoning the delay as the demand notice as well as Form Nos.16 and 17 issued by the Recovery Officer were duly served on the petitioner besides being affixed on the schedule property.
28 Though ordina-rily prayer for condonation of delay should receive a liberal consideration at the hands of the Court and
11
Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to do so, because of the conduct of the petitioner himself which is glaring and appa-rent on the face of the record.
29 Section 30 of the 1993 Act provides for appeal against an order of Recovery Officer. Sub-Section (1) of Section 30 says that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under the 1993 Act, may within 30 days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. As per Sub-Section (2), on receipt of such an appeal, the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and after making such enquiry as it deems lit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer.
30 Evidently, petitioner has not filed appeal before the Tribunal as provided under Section 30 of the 1993 Act against the impugned order of the Recovery Officer. Instead, petitioner has straight away approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing the alternative remedy of appeal as provided by the statute.
I
72
Act, 1961 and the Income Tax (Certilicate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, sha]l as far as possible appiy with necessary modifications as if the said provisions refer to the amount of debt due under the 1993 Act instead of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the proviso, any reference under the aforesaid provisions to the assessee sha1l be construed as a reference to the defendant under the 1993 Act.
32 Insofar II Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned, Rule 60 thereof provides for application to set aside sa.le of immovable property on deposit, As per Sub-Rule (1), where immovable property has been sold in execution of a certificate, the defaulter or ary person whose interests are effected by the sa1e, may, at any time, within 30 days from the date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Ofhcer (Recovery Officer) to set aside the sale on his depositing the amounts specified in the proclamation of sa-1e with applicable interest and for payment to the purchaser as penalty, a sum equal to 5% of the purchase money. Under Rule 61, the defaulter or any person whose interests are effected by the sa-le of immovable property in execution of a certificate, may, at any time, within 30 days from the date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Officer (Recovery Oflicer) to set aside the sale of the immovable property on the ground that notice was not served on the defaulter to pay the arrears as required by the II Schedule or on the ground of material irregularity in
I.'
publishing or conducting the sale. As per the proviso, no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the Tax Recovery Officer (Recovery Officer) is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of non-service or material irregularity and that an application made by a defaulter under Rule 6 I shall be disa-llowed unless the applicant deposits the amount recoverable from him in the execution of the certificate.
32.1 Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 60 clarifies that where a person makes an application under Rule 61 for setting aside the sale of his immovable property, he shall not, unless he withdraws that application, be entitled to mal<e or prosecute arr application under Rule 6O.
33 Admittedly, petitioner did not maJ<e any application either under Rule 60 or under Rule 61 of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 for setting aside the sale of immovable property possibly because he could not comply with the conditions stipulated in Rule 60 or in Rule 61.
34 That being the position, we do not find any good ground to interfere rvith the docket order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Tribunal.
I
35 Insofar the decree of the Tribunal dated 07.06.2018 is concerned, !,e may mention that the said decree was passed under Section 19 of the 1993 Act, which is appealable to the
L4
Appellate Tribunal under Section 20. As per Sub-section (3) of Section 2O, such an appeal is required to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date on which copy of the order made or deemed to have been made by the Tribunal is received by the aggrieved person. As per the proviso, the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the aJoresaid period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
36 Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, while declining to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 07.06.2018 decreeing O.A.No.65S of 2017, we leave it to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the competent forum though we make it clear that we have not expressed arry opinion on the admissibility of such appeal on the point of limitation as well as on merit.
37 Subject to the above, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
\
these t\4,o writ petitions shall also stand dismissed. r, ---/ SOi-G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT RE ISTRA ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER
1, First Ftoor, RamalayamComplex,MarnRoad '.M-eak-502110'
I
6
HIGH COURT
DATED:03/0212022
COMMON ORDER
W.P.Nos.23048 and 34148 of 2021
1 HE S r41 €
a. \<br>(i(
2 JUr 2022 z
l.
,+
o€spATC.H Eo
DISMISSING THE BOTHWRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS
(a_<br>-1/
\7
I \1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proclamation of sale dated 01.07.2021 issued by the Recovery Officer for auction of the mortgaged property was illegal for want of notice and opportunity to the petitioner.
Whether the Tribunal's refusal to condone the 1232-day delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 19.04.2018 warranted interference under Article 226.
Whether the writ petitions were maintainable without availing the alternative remedies of appeal under Sections 20 and 30 of the 1993 Act.
9 provisions across 4 enactments
V. Laxma Reddy
Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Hyderabad
Indian Overseas Bank, Medak Branch
Eedula Vamsi Krishna Reddy
Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Hyderabad
Ujjal Bhuyan
P. Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
