Dismissed

Gorantla Veeraiah Chowdary v. Bank of Baroda and another

Telangana HC7 Jun 2022WP/24410/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 at the admission stage. The petitioner, son of the deceased guarantor and claimant of being a third party, challenged the sealing of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act by the bank and cooperative society. The court found the petition lacked bona fides and did not dispose of the substantive issues.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

Gorantla Veeraiah Chowdary Vs Bank of Baroda and… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 24410 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gorantla Veeraiah Chowdary, S/o Sri Chenchupunnaiah, H.No.T.S.No.649, Old Door No.5B-2-1, Present D.No.5B-59-85 Ward No.6, Block No.15, Santhapet, Ongole Prakasam D^jstrict.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Bank of Baroda, Zosar Branch Saidabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶12

GSMH lnfratech Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing DirectorG.S. Rao Flat No.4, Rukmini Enclave, Yousufguda, Hyderabad -500045.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or.direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the orders dated 2610412022 passed in Crl.lr/.P.No.4612022 on the file of the Chief Judicial lvlagistrate, Ongole against a dead person i.e., G. Rajakumari without making her legal representatives as parties and the consequential acts of seizure and sealing of the residential house^property of the Petitioner bearing D.No.5B-2-'1 , constructed on T.S.No.649, Old DoorNo.58-2-1 , present Door No.58-59- 85, Ward No.6, Block -15, present Assessment No.1035023200 (Old assessment No.1626), admeasuring 86114 Gadis of site consisting of RCC ground and first floor, near Anjaneya Swamy vari temple, Santhapet, Ongole, as illegal, inoperative and void and in violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, to direct the Respondent No.'1 bank to forthwith remove the seal fixed on the lock of the Petitioner to enable the Petitioner to reside in the said house.

¶15

il2lt

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

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 direct the Respondent No" 1 to forthwith remove the seal fixed on the lock of the residential house property of the Petitioner bearing D.No.58-2-1, constructed on T.S.No.649, Old Door No.5B-2-1, present Door No.58-59-85, Ward No.6, Block - 15, present Assessment No.1035023200 (Old assessment No.1626), admeasuring 861/4 Gadis of site consisting of RCC ground and first floor, near Anjaneya Swamy vari temple, Santhapet, Ongole, through Advocate Commissioner to enable the Petitioner to reside in the said house.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI

¶19

Counsel for the Resp,rndents: NONE APPEARED

¶20

The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

¶23

TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN And THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.244rO OF 2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

(Per Hon'ble Sri .lusticc Ujjal Bhuyan)

¶27

Heard Mr.Srinivas Velagapudi, leerned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

2 By filing this pctition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No.l to forthwith remove the lock and seal from the premises of the schedule property.

¶29

3 It is stated that petitioner is one of the joint owners ald possessors of a rcsidentia,l house property bearing D.No.5B-2-1, constructed on'1.S.No.649, old D.No.5B-2-1, Ward No.6, Block-15, present assessment No. 10350211200 (old assessment No.1626), admeasuring 86 1/4 gadis ncar Anjancya Swamy Vari Temple, Santhapet, Ongole.

¶30

4 Respondcnt No.2 had availcd loan from respondent No. 1. As a security the abovc property \.'a s mortgaged by late Smt. Gorantla Raja l(umari during hcr lifetime. She died on 23.05.2018. It is stated that on 25.05.2022 the alorcsaid residential house was^put under lock and seal bv the first rcspondent. It is stated that first

¶31

¶32

¶33

respondent had sealed the property through advocate commissioner following warrant issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ongole in Cr1.M.P.No.46 12022

¶34

5 Content;on of the petitioner is that the warrant was issued against a dead person Gorantla Raja Kumari and therefore, the same would not be valid. It should have been issued against the legal heirs ol Smt. Gorantla Raja Kumari. According to the petitioner he l'ras filed securitization application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction ol Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'SARFAESI Act') before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -^{II, Hyderabad, which has been numbered as S.A.No.ll2of 2022} However, there is no presiding oflicer in the 'lribunal. Therefore, he has been compelled to approach this Court.

¶35

6 On a qu(:ry by the Court as to the quantum of outstanding dues, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a third party; neither the borrower nor the gLlarantor.. However, he acknor,,,ledges that Smt. Gorantla Raja Kumari r,r'as his mother who had mortgaged the schedule property to respondent No.1 as a security for thr: loan availed of bv respondent No.2. On a further query by the Court, he submits that the amount of outstanding dues is more than Rs.3.00 crores

¶36

¶37

7 However, from a perusal of the e-auction sale notice issued by the first respondent on Oq.O2.2O22 it is seen that the outstanding dues have been quantified by the first respondent at Rs.13,14,05, 158-00 as on 31.01 .2022 plus applicable interest, expenses and other charges. In the e-auction sale notice name of the petitioner is included in the list of borrowers, guarantors, mortgagers and legal heirs being the son and legal heir of late Smt. Gorantla Raja Kumari.

¶38

B On being asked by the Court as to whether petitioner would pay 15% of the outstanding dues, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner is neither the borrower nor the guarantor, he would not pay any such amount.

¶39

9 Admittedly, mother of the petitioner was the guarantor for the loan availed of by respondent No.2. Evidently, respondent No.2 has defaulted in repayment of the loan amount for which respondent No.1 had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, whereafter the schedule property was put to auction.sale.

¶40

10 From the stand taken by the petitioner Court is not convinced about his bona fid.es. Court cannot countenance a situation where neither the borrower nor the guarantor pay a single penny as repayment of the loan and on the contrary a challenge is made to recovery proceedings on technicaiities by a

¶41

¶42

person claiming to be third party though he is the son of the guarantor- Petitioner has also not mentioned about the other legal heirs of late Smt. Gorantla Raja Kumari nor has he arrayed them as parties to the present proceeding. The other legal heirs have not raised any grievance regarding the steps taken by the secured creditor for recovery ol outstanding dues.

¶43

11 Since the court is not convinced about r].e bonafdes of the petitioner and also considering the above, court is not inciined to invoke its extraordinary iurisdiction under Articre 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶44

12 Consequently, writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions,

¶45

if any, pending in this writ petition, shail also stand dismissed.

¶46

SD/.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶47

,TRUE COPY'

¶48

To, '1 . 9ne CC to Sri Srinivas Velagapudi Advocate tOpUCl 2. fwo CD Copies 3. One Spare Copv CHR Bs A^-

¶49

t li' SECTION OFFICER

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710612022

ORDER

STAT€
1 c
(
iP
ii
1E j \rli
-lt
t DESFAI ]

¶54

W.P.No.24410 of 2022

¶55

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

\4)
\b Itlr*-

Gorantla Veeraiah Chowdary v. Bank of Baroda and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorantla Veeraiah Chowdary v. Bank of Baroda and another

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

Sri. Sampath Venkata Ramana Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

M/s Kakatiya Cotton Industries Vs The Authorised Officer and 8 Others

Paras Collins Distilleries Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Union of India, Vs Shri.a v Ranganath IPS

M/s Kirby Building Systems and Structures India Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Dasari Krishna Reddy Vs L.I.C.Housing Finance Limited