Disposed

Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy v. Authorized Officer State Bank of India

Telangana HC7 Nov 2022WP/3152/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by an auction purchaser and tenant against SBi regarding possession of secured assets. The Court held the petition was not maintainable without challenging the appointment order for the Advocate Commissioner. However, granting liberty due to the expired warrant, the Court directed the Bank to use Section 14 or 17 of the SARFAESI Act for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the respondent Bank to take action to recover amounts due.

Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy Vs Authorized Officer… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³⁰⁶ ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3152 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy, S/o late M. Ram Reddy, Aged 45 years, OccMedical Practitioner, R/o Flat No. 401, Sylvan Apartrnent, EshwariPuri Colony, Kapra , GHMC.

¶10

Vikas Reddy, S/o late M. Subhash Chandra Reddy, aged 33 years, OccBusiness, Rl/o Flat No. 401, Sylvan Apartment, EshwariPuri Colony, Kapra, GHMC

¶11

...PETtTTONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Authorized Officer, State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch -ll, H.No.1€-563/1, 1st Floor, RTC X Roads, Chaikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500020

¶14

Smt. KNPL Prasanna, Wo late K. Kalyana Chakravarthi, Aged 37 years, OccHouse Wife, R/o Flat No.G2, Pragathi Srinivasam Apartment, Sainathpuram, Dr. A.S. Rao Nagar, Hyderabad 062.

¶15

Sri K. Mallikarjuna, S/o K. Beeraiah , aged 47 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o Falt No.007, Plot No.169 aM 170, Veda Havens Apartments, J.J. Nagar, sainikpuri, Secunderabad.

¶16

The Deputy Commissioner, Kapra Circle, GHMC, Kapra, Hyderabad 062.

¶17

Sri. V. Arvind Kumar, S/o not known, aged 30 years, Occ- Advocate, C/o Bar Association, LB Nagar District Court, Ranga Reddy Distr'rct.

¶18

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice of the fifth respondent dated 02-02-2021 to handover the possession as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural^justice, and consequentty to set aside the same.

¶20

I I

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition undr r Section 15'l CPC^praying that in the circr.rmstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed ir support of the^petition, the High Coun^{rray be pleasedTo} suspend of the imp ugned notice dated 02.02.2021 issued by^{-espondent No.5 to} handover the^posse ssion^pending disposal of the writ^petition

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition unde^' Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in r,upport of the petition, the High Court ma'/ kre^{pleased pleased} to amend the prayer of Writ Petition as: "Hon'ble Court may br: ;rleased to issue an appropriate writ, or< er or direction more especially one in thc, nature of Writ of Mandamus declarirg the impugned Notice vide No.SARB.IUHYD/NNK/2O192011030 dated 04.01,.2020 issued by the 1st respondent forfr:itng the^petitioner's amount as bad, illeg al, arbitrary and violation of the principk:s of natural^justice, and consequently to set aside the same, and pass such othe'r^,:rder or orders as this Hon'ble Court leems fit and proper in the circumstan(:es of the case". INSTEAD OF "Hon'b e Court may be pleased to issue an apprcpriate writ, order or direction more espe:ially one in the nature of Writ of Mancarnus declaring the Notice of the fifth re;pondent daled O2-02-2021 to handover tne possession as bad, illegal, arbitrar / and violation of the principles of ralural^justice, and consequently to set : rside the same, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the crse".

¶25

Counsel for the Petit oner(s):SRl. N MUKUNDA REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Resg ondent 1 : SRl. G PRABHAKAR SARMA

¶27

Counsel for the Resp ondent 4 : SRl. SAMPATH PRABHAKAF ti EDDY (SC FOR GHMC)

¶28

The Court made the I rllowing: ORDER

¶29

-z-

¶30

----l

¶31

HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.3152 of 2O2l

¶33

ORDER :^per Uon'ble Sri Justi'ce P.Naveen RaoJ

¶34

Heard learned counsel Sri N. Mukunda Reddy Ravi for petitioners and leamed counsel Sri G.Prabhakar Sarma for respondents.

¶35

1st petitioner is auction purchaser and 2d petitioner is tenant of the secured asset. A person by name K. Kalyan Chakravarttti borrowed money from the respondent - State Bank of India. As borrower defaulted in repayment of loan amount, the loan account was classilied as non-performing asset and the respondent - Bank has taken recourse to the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (for short SARFAESI ACT, 2OO2) to recover the amount due. The respondent - Bank also liled application in Crl.M.P.No.296 of 2O2O before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI ACT, 2OO2, to secure physical possession of the secured asset. The learned Magistrate passed orders appointing \r

¶36

¶37

Advocate^t )ommissioner to take physical posses-"ion of the secured ar,sct. On O2.O2.2O21 the Advocate Coremissioner issued no,ice to take physical possession of tte secured asset. At t[ at stage, this writ petition was filed.

¶38

A ur it petition is not maintainable agairrst a notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, without challenging the order of the Magistrate appointing the Advocate Commissio rer to take to physical possession of tlLe secured asset. Morr over, ttris writ petition is also not mairrt:rinable on the ground that petitioners have an effective antl r:fhcacious remedy ava ilable in the form of application under fiection 17 of the sAI IFAESI ACT, 2OO2, before the Debts Rccovery Tribunal, if they are aggrieved by any decision/eLcl ion taken by the resp rndent - Bank under the provisions of :iARFAESI ACT,2OO2, to recover the loan amount.

¶39

Howe rer, having regard to the fact that tht: warrant issued by tlte learned Magistrate expired long ago v;e are not relegating the petitioners to avail remedy provid:d under Secrion 17 of rhe SARFAESI ACT, 2OO2. If ar: all the respondent - Bank need to take possession of th<: secured

-l

-4-

I I I

IIj I I {

asset, it may have to take recourse to the pr<.rvisions o[ the Section 14 ofthe SARFAESI ACT, 2OO2, afresh.

¶45

In view thereof, the Writ Petition is disposed ot granting liberty to the respondent - Bank to take action as warranted by law, to recover the amounts due. However, there is no expression of opinion on merits and it is open to the petitioners to work out their rernedies as available in law, on any subsisting grievance.

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶47

closed.

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

SD/. C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR | /' 1!)

¶50

SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

Authorized Officer State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch -ll, H.No.1-8-563/'1, 1st Floor, RTC X Roads, Chaikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500020

¶53

The Deputy Commissioner, Kapra Circle, GHMC, Kapra, Hyderabad 062.

¶54

One CC to SRl. N MUKUNDA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

One CC to SRl. G PRABHAKAR SARMA Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

One CC to SRl. SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY^(SC FoR GHMCXOUT).

¶57

Two CD Copies KAR

sw^tk

\ \

i II I I I ii

i 1t

HIGH COUR..

DATED:0711' 12022

I
t,
ia 1$ l[rl ?[Il

ORDER

WP.No.3152 ot 2O21

DISPOSING CIF THE WRIT PETITION

¶68

WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

gL4*\ y{_ ;flzs

Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy v. Authorized Officer State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy v. Authorized Officer State Bank of India

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

M/s Indu Project Ltd. Vs Nmdc (a Government of India Enterprise) and another

K.V.O. Narasi Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Badguna Neelaveni Vs Sri. Garneni Chalapathi Rao and 7 Others

M/s. Indushree Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Ifci Ltd. and 5 others

S B Ali Sabir, Warangal Dist Vs the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 2 Others

V. Rama Rao Vs Punjab National Bank