Dismissed

Ms. Elizabeth Rani v. Union Bank of India

Telangana HC1 Feb 2022WP/5276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court issued ad-interim relief restraining the bank from further dispossession pending a potential SARFAESI Act petition. However, the main writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to file the requisite application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal as directed earlier.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim relief directing security deposit and liberty to file SARFAESI application granted initially; subsequently, main petition dismissed for non-compliance.

Ms. Elizabeth Rani Vs Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5276t0F 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ms. Elizabeth Rani, Wo. Yesuratnam Moguluri, Age 36^years, Occ Business, Ri/o.H.no.5-44l147, R.R.Nagar, Nagaram Post, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State,} Pin 500083 ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

UNION BANK OF lNDlA,^{(Erstwhile-Coperation} Bank),Sainikpuri^Branch, Dr.A.s.Rao Nagar, Secunderabad, Represented by^{its AuthorizedOfficer,} Sri.J.Shankar Rao S/o. J. Panduranga Vittal.

¶11

,..RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue a Writ, Order or Direction^{more particularlyone in the natureof WRIT OF} MANDATUUS declaring the action of^{the respondentbank in issuing Noticeto the} Borrower lnforming about sale^{(saleNotice under Rule 6(2) & 8(6) Securitylnterest} (Enforcement) Rule 2002) of on 01-12-2021 for dispossessing and taking^possession of the petitioners^property, All the^{Residencial lndependent House on Plot Bearing} No. l4T,admeasuring 200.0 sq.yards or^{167.0 sq.Mtrs(lncluding Plinth Area'1400} sq.fts , RCC in Ground Floor)^{in Survey No.466 & 467, situated at DammigudaH/O} Nagaram Village, Grampanchayat^{Dammaiguda[t4andal Keesara,Ranga Reddy} District and bounded as follows^{North Land of Guman Reddy} ,^{SouthPlot No. 148,} East 20 Wide Road, west^- Plot^{No. 146 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of} Natural Justice and violation of^{Fundamental RightsguaranteedUnderthe} Constitution of lndia and contrary to^{the provisionsof SARFAESI Act and set aside} the same and consequently direct the^{respondentsnot to dispossess/interferewith} the peaceful^possession of the^{petitioners propertyfrom the above premises.}

¶13

AN :1 OF 20

¶14

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto stay of} all further^proceeding to interfere /^{disposes from the petitioners propertyAll the} Residencial lndependent House On^{Plot BearingNo. 147, admeasuring2000} sq.yards or^.167.0 sq.Mtrs^{(lncluding Plinth Area 1400sq.fts} ,^{RCC in Ground Floor)} in Survey No.466 & 467, situated at^{DammigudaH/0 Nagaram} .^Village' Grampanihayat Dammaiguda Mandal^{Keesara, Ranga Reddy; District and bou.nded} as foliows : North: Land of Guman^Reddy ,^{South : Plot No. 148, East : 20' Wide} Road, West: Plot No. 146,^{pendingdisposal Of main WritPetition.}

¶15

COUNSEI fOr thc^{PCtitiONET:SRI.SRINATH REDDYFORNAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:^{METTU SRINIVAS REDDY}

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

(

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{UJJAL BHUYAN}

¶21

AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{P, SREE SUDHA}

¶23

WRIT PI,]TITIO N NO.5276 0F^2{)2'.2

¶24

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ujjal^Bhuvan)

¶25

Heard Mr. Srinath Reddy, learned counsel^for the^petitioner and Sri M. Srinivas Reddy, learned^{counselfor the respondent.}

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed for^{quashing of notice dated} 01.12.2021 issued by the respondent.

¶27

We find that challenging the sa,me notice,^{petitionerhad} earlier approached this Court by filing^W.P.No.33055 of^2O2l which was disposed of by the finai order dated 30.12.2021 in^the following manner:

¶28

'By fifing this^{petition under} Article^{226 oltl:^e} Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged^{the legality} and validity of the notice dated 01.12.2021^{issued to him by} respondent whereby, petitioner has been informed^thatthe secured asset would be sold by auction or^{evenby privatesale} by frxing the reserve price at Rs.68,60,000.00.

¶29

We hnd from the documents on record that as^{per the} respondent, the outstanding liabilities oI the^petitioner as^on 05. 10.20 19 is Rs.48,91, 142.00.

¶30

Learned counsel for the^petitioner submits^{that even} aJter this date, substantial payments have been made^{by the} petitioner.

¶31

From the above, what is evident is that respondent has taken action against the petitioner under the^provisionsof the Securitisation ald Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short^ttte SARFAESI Act') read with the provisions of tJee Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶32

Under Section 17 of the SARPAESI Act, petitioner has got an adequate and efficacious remedy. We are, therefore, of the view tJrat petitioner should be relegated to the forum of alternative remedy.

¶33

uB,J & PSS,J ur.P.No.s276 0F 2022 (Per UB,J)

¶34

¶35

¶36

In the light of the above,^{we grant liberty to the} petitioner to file Securitisation Application^{under Section 17 of} the SARFAESI Act before^{the jurisdictiona-l DebtsRecovery} Tribunal within a perio<l^{of thirty davs from todayand if the} same is so filerl, tt shall be^{considered on its own ment.}

¶37

Funhcr, we clirect the^{petitionerro deposit107oof the} outstanding liabilities^{within a period of four weeksfrom} today.

¶38

Subject to the above,^{respondentis directed not to} take further steps^{pursuant to the impugned noticedated} or.72.2027.

¶39

However, if there is^{any default on the part of the} petitioner, either in approaching^{the jurisdictionalDebts} Recovery Tribunal or^{inmakingthe deposit as above,} respondent shall^{be at libertyto proceedagainstthe petitioner} in accordance with law.

¶40

Writ Petition is,^{accordingly, disposed of'Related} interim application^{is also disposedof.'}

¶41

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner has referredto the bank} statement at^{pagc Nos.28and 29 of the paper book and submits} therefrom that^{on a totality ol the deposits made by the petitioner'} more than 10% of thc^{outstanding liability have been deposited'} Llowever,onaquerybYtheCourtastowhetherpetitionerhasfiled securitisation^{application before the jurisdictionalDebtsRecovery} Tribunal under Section^{17 of theSecuritisationand} Reconstruction of^{FinancialAssets and Enforcementof security} Interest Act, 2OO2^{(SARFAESIAct),he submits that as there is no} Presiding Officer,^{petitioner has not liled any such securitisation} application.

¶42

We fail to understand^{the logic behind such submission'} While the Presiding Officer^{may not be there, the Registry of the} Tribunal is functioning.^{Petitioner has not filed such application} despite there being^{a clear direction of this Court to the petitioner}

¶43

UB,J & PSS,J 1lr.P.No.s276 0F 2022 (Per UB,J)

¶44

¶45

.,/

¶46

to file securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the^{jurisdictional} Tribunal. That apart, with the same grievance, petitioner has again liled the present Writ Petition. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ

¶47

Petition.

¶48

Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶49

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand

¶51

dismissed.

¶52

SDIP.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

l^,-.-

SECTION OFFICER

To,

one CC to SRl. SRINATH^{REDDY FoR NAGESHWARRAo PUJARI, Advocate} toPUCl

¶59

One CC to SRl. METTU^{SRINIVAS REDDY' AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶60

Two CD Copies.

¶61

One Spare Copy.

GB \ !" BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:01^10212022

ORDER

WP.No.5276 of 2022

{ E SiAIA-
-f
,:] 21 rtts 2022
+

¶68

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.

¶69

Ms. Elizabeth Rani v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Elizabeth Rani v. Union 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

Banoth Ravi Kumar and 80 Others Vs The District Collector and 5 others

M/s. R.K.Distilleries Private Limited Vs The Additional commissioner of State Tax(Gr-1) and 4 others

M/s Aditya Global Infra Pvt. Limited Vs State Bank Of India

M/s Disha Hotels Vs Telangana State Financial Corporation

M/s.Gennex Laboratories Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) and 4 Others

Smt Nedunorri. Lavanya Vs The Authorized Officer