Dismissed

M/s Sri Laxmi Construction v. Bank of Baroda

Telangana HC1 Jul 2022WP/27739/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging eviction notices under SARFAESI Act was dismissed. The petitioner had already approached the DRT under Section 17. The Court held no precipitous action warrants extraordinary jurisdiction but allowed deposit of 15% dues to stay Commissioner's notices pending Tribunal outcome. Petition dismissed otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Eviction notices stayed subject to depositing 15% of dues; Writ petition dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.

M/s Sri Laxmi Construction Vs Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

I I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^UJJALBHUYAN AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 27739 OF²⁰²²

¶10

Between:

¶11

lvt/s Sri Laxmi Construction, Rep.by^{its PartnerSri Ch. VijayReddy Situated at} H.No.8-7-38/1 , 3RD Floor, Laxminilaya,^{Raja RajeshwariNagar,OldBoinpally} Secundrabad, Telangana State.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

Bank of Baroda, Boinpally Branch Sikh^{Road,Sector C, lvlanovikas Nagar,} Secundrabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiledtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to pass order or orders direction more^{particularlyin the nature of writ of} Mandamus or any other appropriate^{writ, order or directionto set aside the} Eviction Notice dated 23.06.2022^{in pursuance of the warrant in crl MP No. 190} of 2O22 on the file of the^{Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, RR District,} consequently set aside the eviction^{noticedated 23.06.2022 with reference to the} warrani in Crl Mp No. 142 oI^{2022on the file of the Hon'bleChief Judicial} Magistrate, RR District, in^{pursuance of the Possession Notice dated 28.07.2021} issued under section 13^{(4) of the SARFAESIAct as illegal,nulland voidwithout} following due^process of law,^{and consequently direct Debt's RecoveryTribunal-} ll, Hyderabad to dispose the^{case S.A.No.158 of 2021on merits.}

¶17

|.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition Under Section^{"151 CPC prayingthatin the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} stay of all further^{proceedingsin pursuance of the Eviction Noticedated} 23.06.2022 with reference of^{the warrant in crl MP No- 142 0t 2022 0n the file of} the Hon,ble chief Metropolitan^{Magistrateat Ranga Reddy,in pursuance of the} Possession Notice dated^{28.o7.2021 including taking physical possession of the} properties.

¶19

!.A.NO 2 0F 2022

¶20

I)etition Under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the itffidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High court may be pleased to} stayofallfurtherproceedingsinpUrSuance'_of.theEvictionNoticedated 23.O6.1t022 in^{pursuanceof thd warrantin crl Mp No. 190 of 2022on the file of} theHon,bleChiefMetropolitanMagistrateatRangaReddy,inpursuanceofthe Posses;sion Notice^{dated 28.07 .2O2lincludingtakingphysical possessionof the} proper.ies.

¶21

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI.D.RAGHAVULU}

¶22

Counsel for the^{Respondent : NONEAPPEARED}

¶23

The Court made the^{following ORDER}

¶24

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^UJJALBHIIYAN AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTIC E SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.27739 of²⁰²²

¶27

ORDER: eer *e Hon'ble^{thc ChiefJustice Ullal Bhulat!}

¶28

Heard Mr. D.Raghavulu, learned^{counselfor the} petitioner.

¶29

By filing this^{petitionunder Article 226 of the} Constitution of India,^{petitioner seeksquashing of notice} dated 23.06.2022 issued^{by the Advocate Commissionerfor} vacating the schedule Premises.

¶30

Be it stated that on the^{ground ofdefaultin} repayment of loan^{respondentinitiatedproceedingsunder} the Securitisation and^{Reconstructionof FinancialAssets} and Enforcement of SecuritSr^{InterestAct,2OO2 (briefly, the} SARFAESI Act' hereinafter)^{againstthe petitioner. In this} connection possession notice^{dated28.O7.2021was issued.}

¶31

l/( /,1 i^../ I l'\o )-::t),tl 2()2)

¶32

¶33

Petitioner had filed a^{writ petition before this Court} assailing the aforesaid^{possession notice. The writ petition} was registered as W.P.No.3l622^{of 2O2l-By the order} dated 03. 12.2021, the^{writ petition was dismissedon the} ground that after the^{possessionnotice dated28 'O7} '2021 was issued, no^{consequential steps were taken thereafter} to warrant invocation^{of writ jurisdictionof the Court'This} Court had taken note^{of the fact thatagainst the} possession notice petitioner^{had filed an application under} Section 17 of the^{SARFAESI Act before the DebtsRecovery} Tribunal - II, Hyderabad^{(Tribunal),which has been} registered as S.A.No.15a^{of 2021. Since the petitioner had} already availed its statutory^{remedy and as there was no} precipitous action by the^{respondent,this Court declined} to interfere. Relevant^{portion of theorder dated} 03.12.2021 reads as^under:

¶34

'2. Bg fiting^{th)s petition under Article226 of the} Constitution of India,^{petitionerseek's q'uashingof} possession notice dated 28.07.2021^{issued bg the} respond-ent/ Bank of Baroda^{under ktle 8(1) of the} r Secuitg Interest (Enforcement)^Rules,2002.

¶35

tr/

¶36

ITCJ & SNJ W P No.27739 of2a22

¶37

It appears that respondent had^{issued notice} under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstntction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Secuitg Interest Ac\ 2002 (bieJly 'the^SARFAESI Act' hereinafier) to the petitioner to LUhich^petitioner hnd submitted reply. Respondent has not accepted the^reply of the petitioner. Thereafter, impugned^possession notice came to be issued on 28.07.2021 by the Authorised Olftcer of the respondent/ Bank^{of Baroda.}

¶38

It furlher appears that against the aforesaid action of the respondent,^petitioner has filed^an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI^Act before the Debts Recouery Tibunal-Il,^Hyderabad (Tribunal) uhich has been registered as 5.A.No.158 of 2021.

¶39

Houteuer, on the same gieuance,^{the present} wit petition tns been filed. On o query bA the court as to whg the uit petition has been ftled, learned^counsel for the petitioner submits that^petitioner apprehends drspossession bg re s pondent.

¶40

?he possession notice is dated^28.07.2021, against uhich petitioner Ltas alreadg moued^the Tibunal. There is no^precipitous action thereafier^to u)arrant inuocation of our extraordinary^{jurisdiction. It} i.s tite latu that a litigant cannot pursue tuo remedies on the same subject matter at one and the same^time. When the petitioner has already auailed its^remedg under Section 17 of tIrc SARFAESI^Act, ue fail^to understand os to how the present wit^petition is

¶41

¶42

IICJ & SAJ tt' P l'o.)7739 of2022

¶43

maintoinable. Horueuer, u)e request^{the Tibunalto take} up S.A.N1. 158 of 2021 expeditiouslg.

¶44

Subiect to the aboue obseruation, uit^{petition is} di.smissed."

¶45

It is no'vi' contended that respondent^{had approached} the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,^RangaReddy District, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI^{Act, whereafter} the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate^appointedan Advocate Commissioner following^which the^Advocate Commissioner issued the notices^{dated23.06.2022.}

¶46

From a perusal of the possession^noticedated 2a.O7 .2021 it is seen that outstanding^{dues of the} petitioner \vas quantified by the resPondent at Rs.4,37,43,8 48.7 2 as on 20.O4.2021.

¶47

7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits^{that even} as of today there is no Presiding Oflicer^{in the Tribunal} rendering the same non-functional.

¶48

Since the petitioner has already availed^{the statutory} remedy under Section 17 oi the^{SARFAESI Act, itmay}

¶49

¶50

HC.l & SNJ w.P.No 27739 of 2D2

pursue such remedy. That apart, if the petitioner deposits 15Yo of the outstanding dues as on date within a period of thirty days from today, respondent shall not proceed further pursuant to the notices of the Advocate Commissioner dated 23.06.2022 which, in any event, would be subject to outcome of S.A.No. 15 8 of 2O21. However, we make it clear that if there is any default on the part of the petitioner in making the payment as above, it would be open to the respondent to proceed in accordance with law for realisation of outstanding dues.

¶56

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶57

1O. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶58

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶60

SECTION

¶61

To , SECTION SEiI#r3B::.a,^{Boinpaily Branch SikhRoad, Sectorc, rvanovikas} Nasar, 2 3 to SRLD.RAGHAVULU, Advocate topucl 4^{. ?#:33} . One spare iopy s.A BS #^r

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10712022

ORDER

I (<br>tq cr:l lfl"I

WP.No.27739 of 2022

DISI'OSING OF THE W.P

¶68

WITI.IOUT COSTS.

¶69

M/s Sri Laxmi Construction v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sri Laxmi Construction v. Bank of Baroda

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

T Dhangopal Rao Vs Chief Secy., Hyd., Tg., and Another

M/s Pogula Sujata Filling station Vs Aditya Birla Finance limited

M/s.Ranjeet Seeds and 2 others Vs State Bank of India

Tabeti Suresh Kumar Vs Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) and another

M/s Tnr Industries (P) Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Sudhalcar Gupta and anothers Vs Singidi Ram Reddy