Dismissed

Smt Nedunorri. Lavanya v. The Authorized Officer

Telangana HC1 Feb 2022WP/5284/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a sale notice and auction under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and sought stay of proceedings. The High Court found no legal infirmity in the bank's action and dismissed the petition without issuing a notice for settlement.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 14.12.2021 and consequential E-auction held on 19.01.2022 were not set aside; petition dismissed.

Smt Nedunorri. Lavanya Vs The Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE

¶2

Ar HYDERABA,

¶3

(specia, ".,r:j 1,1,*:-1":::A TU-ESDAY ,THE FIR ,w o rH o u io,riTn^{ojI,iIG.rW^} *,

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN rHE HoNo,RAB.. .ril?rr,.. p.sREE suDHA

¶6

Between:

¶7

RITPETI NO OF 2

¶8

;jii H1,fi::3.r:b1ix? 3'J:.| 3?,,,?:H.?J#e,l#:iff.fr?,1;s::,i::l?:::

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

J!&fi3i'ffl"?fl::;;Bii!"Jji!#i,;rt3affi,y Branch, No 1 ss, sikh Road,

¶12

PetitionunderArlicle226nflhA/.^.^1:.....-...RESPoNDENT of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in ,n" "rri sale notice to pass an order dated 14.12.202ior orders ""J:";:':::,:"jil;l;JT*,il^i^,X;1fi:,"ffij open p rot bea rins No r r,r,,il;r";T :X"jrffi .'::;il:H:,'""IiT :* meters in Sy No 34 part and 29 part, situated at Dharmaram vi age, Thimmaipally Grannpanchyat, Keesra IVandal, Ranga Reddy (East) District, illegal, arbitrary against the principar of naturarjustice violation of the .ARFAEST ACT, 2002 riabre to setaside.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶14

Petition under Sectjon 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 tne responoent oanK to STAY the proceedjngs of the sale notice dated 14.12.2021 and sale fixed for E auction dated 29.01.2022 without notice to the petitioner premises open plot bearing No 59, admeasuring 267.00 Sq yards or equjvalent to 223.21 Sq meters iri Sy No 34 part and 29 part, situated at Dharmaram village, Thimmaipally Grampanchyat, Keesra Mandal, Ranga Reddy (East) District.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. K.BUCHI BABU

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED

¶17

\e Cou(made^{the to\o'r\ng:ORDER}

¶18

THE^{HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN}

¶19

AND

¶20

JUSTICE^{P. SREE SUDHA} THE^{HON'BLE SMT'} PETi^T10 NO 84^OF ) 2

¶21

¶22

oRDtR:^{(Perthe Hon'ble Sri JusticeUjjal Bhuyan)} Heard^{Mr' K' Buchi Babu' learned counsel for the petitioner'} By liling^{this petitionunderArticie226ol ttle Constitution of} India,^{petitioner seeks quashingof salenotiqe dated 14 '72'2021} and the^{consequential E-Auction held on 19 '01'2022 '}

¶23

We find^{that peti oner' as the borrower'had availed loan} from^{the respondentout of the salctioned loan amount of} Rs.1'10^{crores, it is alleged that respondenthad released only} Rs.80.00^{lakhs' For avai[ng the loan' petitionerhad mortgaged} the schedule^{property with respondent'details ot whichare} mentioned^{in paragraphNos 2 and 3 of the supporting affidaYitlt} appears^{that petitionerhad defaultedin repaymentol the loan for} which respondent^{filedapplication underSection19 of the} Recovery of^{DebtsDue to Banl<send F-insncialInstjtutionsAct'} 1993 ('the^{1993 Act', hereinafter) before the Debts Recovery} Tribunal-Il,^{Hyderabad (Tribunal)'The saidapplication was} registered^{as O.A.No'350ol 2O2l 'It is submitted that Tribuna-1} had issued orders^dated27.O7 '2021^{and 23 O8'2O21 attaching the} bank accounts^{of the petitionerwherein an amountof} Rs.33,48,000.00^was found^{in deposit.}

¶24

Simultaneously, respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner by invoking the provisions of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enlbrcement of Security lnterest Act, 2OO2 l"the SARFAESI Act,, for brevit-yJ. As per notice

¶25

,,.".Y3:i*iT;,, o22 (per UB,{

¶26

¶27

dated Og.l2.272t issued 1 the petitioner by the respondent under section 13(2) of th. s; Act' the outstanding amount payable by the petition"ro"^"t' as on 06'12'2021 was quantified at Rs.1,22,76,624.28 ps.

¶28

¶29

Finally, the impugner t o"t'on notice came to be issued on 14. 12.2o2lwherer,.,. ,n" ": rhedule propert'y was fixed for auction sare on 19.01.2022.

¶30

On going thr-ough the materials on recorci, we do not lind any error or inlirmity in the impugned action taken by the respondent, Horvever, learned counsej for the petitioner submits that a notice mat, be jssued to the respondent where after there may be scope for settlement. We are afraid we can accept such a course of action as suggested by Iearned counsel for the petitioner. Notice of the Court is not for the mere asking. A pnrna facie case would have to be made out before the Court would issue notice. In the instant case, petitioner is unable to point out ary lega.l infirmity in the impugned action taken by the respondent. That being the position, we decline to interfere in the matter.

¶31

Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶32

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stald

¶34

dismissed.

¶35

To,

¶36

SD/-I.NAGALAKSH MI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// L----SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to SRl. K.BUCHI BABU Advocate [OPUC]