Dismissed

M/s Ln Constructions v. Canara Bank and 2 others

Telangana HC10 Jun 2022WP/23411/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of a bank auction sale, noting the petitioner failed to implead the successful bidder and had not deposited additional funds ordered in earlier proceedings. A previously granted status quo order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; status quo order vacated and miscellaneous applications closed.

M/s Ln Constructions Vs Canara Bank and 2 others — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N NO:23411 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ir,4is LN Constructions, Rep.by its t\rlanaging^{Partner Sri. S. Vinay KumarReddy} S/o Late Narayan Reddy, aged about S5years,^{Occ. BusinessFlatNo.107,Karan} Residency Green View Lane, Bowenpally, Secunderabad^{- 500 0011.}

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Canara Bank, Specialized lt/id Corporte^{Branch Vista Grand Tower,} Rajbhavan Road, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Authorized^Officer.

¶12

P.satyajith Reddy, S/o P.Ram Reddy,^{Agedabout 54, Occ} ;^{Business, R/oFlat} No.Bi, Green Vi6w Apartments, Journalist^{Colony,Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-} 500033.

¶13

K.R.Sudarshan Reddy, S/o Late^{K.R.Govind Reddy, Aged about64years} Occ. Business AF-3, Stone Valley^{Apartment, Road No.4, BanjaraHills,} Hyderabad-34.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 ol the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue any order or direction writ or writs more^{particularlyon in the} nature of wRlT oF MANDAMUS to set aside^{the E- Auctionsale noticedated} 1310412022 fixing the date of Auction^{on 3010412022on the scheduleproperty-A} and D as iltegal, null and void without^{following due processof law.}

¶16

l.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition Under Section^"1 51 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} direct the respondent banker to^allow the^{petitioner to redeemthe schedule} property-A and D and Pending disposal of the appeal.

¶18

|.A.NO:2 OF 2022

¶19

Petition Under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^may be^{pleased to} stay of all further proceedings in^puisuance of the E- Auction Sale notice dated 14.03.2022 fixing the date of Auction on 30.04.2022 on the schedule^property- A and D including confirmation of sale, issuance of the sale certiflcate and registration of the same.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.K.R.SUNIL KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI.A.V.S.S.PRASAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SR|.P.SR| RAM

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICD UJJAL^BHUYAN

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.2347L of 2022

¶28

ORDER:^(Per Hon'ble Sn Justlce^UljcLL Bhuyan)

¶29

Heard Mr. K.R.Suni1 Kumar, learned^{counsel for the} petitioner and Mr. A.V.S.S.Prasad, learned counsel^{for the} respondent No. 1-Canara Bank.

¶30

By filing this petition under Article 226 of^the Constitution of India, petitioner^{seeks quashing of E-auction} sale notice dated 13.04 .2022^proposing to^{hold auctionsale} of the schedule properties A'and 'B' on^3O.O4'2022.

¶31

At the outset, we queried learned^{counselfor the} parties as to what had happened on the date of auction^sale i.e.,30.O4.2022

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that on that day, schedule property^{'D'was auction so1d,} whereafter the successful bidder had deposited^{25%o of the} sale price.

¶33

uB./& sN, J W.P.No.23411 of 2022

¶34

¶35

Admittedly, petitioner has not arrayed the

¶36

successful bidder as a respondent in the present proceeding though he is a necessary party in view of the fact that il the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted by the Court, then the auction purchaser wiil be seriously prejudiced.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he had requested olficials of respondent No.1 to furnish details of the auction purchaser, the same has not been furnished to him. Holvever, on a query bi' the Court, he submits that petitioner has not filed any ap1>lication seeking such information from respondent No.1 under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶38

Be that as it may, learned counsel for respondent No.l points out that in respect of schedule 'B' property covered by the same E-auction sale notice dated 1.3.O4.2022, petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2131B of 2022. Likewise in respect of schedule 'E' property, petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22932 of 2022. In both the writ petitions, this Court had^passed

UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.2341 I of 2022

¶43

separate but identical orders on 27,O1.2022 and 29.04.2022 respectiveiy granting liberty to respondent No.1 to appropriate the amount of Rs.85,00,000/ already deposited by the petitioner into the loan account of the petitioner. That apart, petitioner was directed to deposit further amount of Rs.50,00,000/- within tno (02) weeks from the date ol the respective orders, clarifying that if such payment was made, respondent No.1 would not proceed further pursuant to the sa-le notice dated 13.04,2022 tn respect of the schedule properties 'B' and 'E'. It may be mentioned that petitioner has already filed securitisation application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Hyderabad (Tribunal) against the steps taken by respondent No.1 under the Securitisation and Reconstruction ol Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'SARFAtrSI Act'), u,hich has been registered as S.A.No.232 ol 2021 .

¶44

B. When the present u,rit petition was moved before the Vacation Court, an order was passed on O5.O5.2O22 directing the parties to maintain status quo pursuant to

¶45

)

¶46

UB,J&SN,J W.P.No.23411 oJ 2022

¶47

¶48

auction held on 30.04.2022 in view of the fact that there^is no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal.

¶49

We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition for two reasons. Firstly, S aiready pointed out above, petitioner has not arrayed the auction purchaser, a necessary party, as the respondent in the present proceeding. Secondly, petitioner has not paid Rs.50,00,000/- as directed by this Court in the two writ petitions alluded to herein above til1 date. In that view of the matter, no equitable relief can be extended to the petitioner.

¶50

1 0. Writ Petition is accordingiy dismissed. Hor'r,ever,

¶51

there sha1l be no order as to costs

¶52

Status quo order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶53

As a sequel, misceilaneous applications pending,

¶54

if any, in this Writ Petition, sha11 stand closed.

¶55

SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// L /'\ U,,

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to SRI.K.R.SUNIL KU[,1AR, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI.A.V.S.S.PRASAD, Advocate IOPUC]

¶60

Two CD Copies

¶61

One spare copy

S.A

\ 'rX

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010612022

ORDER

STAT€
ir ()
IC
2 ,l Jun zttz
L-EB P,

WP.No.23411 of 2022

DISMISSING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

@*d,,
-).{ <br>

M/s Ln Constructions v. Canara Bank and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Ln Constructions v. Canara Bank and 2 others

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

Owens Corning Industries (India) Private Limited Vs The Central Board of Direct Tax

M/s Kaparthi Dharamveer and Co. Vs The Income Tax Officer

M/s Rakesh Agro Industries Vs The Income Tax Officer

M/s. Sri Raghavendra Constructions Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Boppana Polymers a proprietor concern and another Vs Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Andhra Bank)

Siva Kiran Vamaraju Vs Piramal Capital And Housing Finance Lui(Formerly Dhfl)