Dismissed

P. Netaji, Hyd. v. Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyd. and Ano.

Telangana HC4 Jan 2024WP/939/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding on land encroachment was a question of fact warranting no interference in this summary jurisdiction, and the petitioner failed to substantiate the plea.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed without costs.

P. Netaji, Hyd. Vs Registrar, Debts… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^33e3l

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

.THE^{HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE} ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION N 0.939 0F 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Netaji, s/o. P. Krishna Rao, aged about 53 years R/o. H.No.16-2-139/7, Marakpet, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar

¶12

Sy-ndicate Bank, Abids Road Branch Abids, Hyderabad Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe 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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to set aside the impugned order dated 1g.1o.2o13 in sA No. 53 of 2009 passed by the 1st respondent.

¶15

I.A. NO:1O F 2014(WPMP. NO: 1023 0F 2014

¶16

Petition under section 15i cpc prayrng that in the circumstarrces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 6.32 lakhs deposited by the petitioner towards 25% of the bid amount in the auction dated

¶17

20.10.2008 in respect of bearing Plot No. 44, admeasuring 246 sq. yards in Sy No. 18712 at Laxmipuri Colony, Yapral Village, Alwal Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,^pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHANAKYA BASA FOR SRI B. CHANDRASEN REDDY

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Ms. P. DEEPTHI FOR SRI A. KRISHNAM RAJU, S.C. FOR SYNDICATE BANK

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: -

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICE ALOKARADHE} AND THE HON'BLE SHRTJUSTTCE^{ANIL KUMARJUKANTI}

¶23

WRIT PETITION^{No.939 of 2014}

¶24

QBDEBTi(p".,he^{Hon'blethe Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)}

¶25

Mr. Chanakya Basa,^{learned counselappears for} Mr. B. Chandrasen^{Reddy,learned counsel for the petitioner'}

¶26

Ms. P. Deepthi,^{learnedcounsel appears for} Mr. A. Krishnam^{Raju, learned Standing Counsel for} respondent No.2 -^{SyndicateBank, Abids RoadBranch,} Hyderabad.

¶27

In this Writ^{Petition,ttre pctitioner,who is an auction} purchaser, has assailed^{the validity of the orderdated} 18.10.2013^{passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal,} Hyderabad^(for short^{'the Tribunal') in S'A'No'53 of 2009 by} which the^{proceeding tilecl by tho petitionerunderSection17} of the Securitization^{and Reconstruction of Financial Assets} and Enforcernent ol^{SecurityInterestAct, 2002(hereinafter}

¶28

referred to as^{'the ZOOz eci')lias been disrnissed'}

¶29

CJ & JAK. J w P.No 939 or 2014

¶30

¶31

Facts giving rise to filing of this Writ petition briefly stated are that a sale notice dated 16.10.200g was published in daily newspaper for sale of open land in plot No.44 measuring 246 .Sq.yards of Survey No.l87l2 situated at Laxmipuri Colony, Yapral Village, Alwal Municipality partly Malkajgiri Mandal. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, an auction was conducted on 20.10.2008. The petitioner parricipated in the afo.esaid auction and was decrared as successfur bidder as his bid of Rs.25,30,000/- was the highest.

¶32

On 27.10.2008, the petitioner deposited 25o/o of the bid alnount i.e., a sum of Rs.6,32,500/_. Thc ltctitioncr was required to deposit the balance amount ol 7i.% within l5 clays i.e., up to I 1.1 1.2008. However, the petitioncr did not cleposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated tiure. The petitioner thereafter approached the Tribunal by initiating a procccding under Section 17 of the 2002 Acton 07.01.2009. Thc l.ribunal by an order dated 18.10.2013 disnrissed the procecding initiated by the petitioner inter alia on thc gror.rncl that thc

¶33

CJ & JAK, J w.P.No.939 ot 2014

¶34

¶35

petitioner has failed to prove the factum of encroachment of

¶36

the land in question by the adjoining land owner.

¶37

In the aforesaid factual background, this^{petition has} been filed.

¶38

Learned counsel for the^{petitionersubn-ritsthat the} respondent bank has already^{recoveredthe amount due from} the debtor and therefore the^amount of^{eamestmoney forfeited} by the respondent bank should be^{released in favourof the} petltloner.

¶39

On the other hand, learned^{counsel fbr the respondent} bank submitted that the action^{has been taken by the} respondent bank in consonance with^{Rule c) ol-the Security} Interest (Enforcement) Rules,²⁰⁰²

¶40

We have considered the subrnissions^{t.tlade on bothsides} and have perused the^record.

¶41

Rule 9(5) of the at'orgpaid^{Rules leadsas under:}

¶42

"(5) In default oI^{paytncnt rvtthintltc pcttotl tuentiotte<lin} sub-rule (4), the deposit shall bc^{lirltcrtcdI() the sccurcd}

¶43

CJ & JAK, J W P.No 939 of20la

¶44

¶45

creditor and the property shall be resold and the delaulting purchaser shall forfeit all clairn to th€ property or to any part ofthe suu for which it nuy be subsequently sold."

¶46

Thus the collsequence of forfeiture is a statutory consequence. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of Rule 9(5) of the aforesaid Rules or it is the case of thc petitioner that the aforesaid Rule does not apply to thc fact situation of the case. The petitioner has failed to substantiate tlre plea taken by hirn before the Tribunal that the adjoining plot owner encroached into the land in question. In any case, whether or not the adjoining land owner has encroached into the subject land is a question of fact which cannot be gonc into in this sumrnary proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution ol lndia in the absence of any material. The findings recordcd by the Tribunal are based on appreciation o{' thc rnaterial available on record and wanant no interference by this Court ut excrclse of power under Article 226 of Constitution olIndia

¶47

CJ & JAK, J W.P No 939 of 2014

¶48

¶49

In the result, the writ^petition fails and is^hereby

¶50

dismissed.

¶51

Miscellaneous applications, if any^{pending,shall stand}

¶52

closed. There shall be no order as^{to costs.}

¶53

'- SD/-MOHD SANAUL HAN ARI ASSISTAN G RAR //TRUE GOPY//

To,

SECTI OFFICER

1 One CC to SRI B. CHANDRASEN^{REDDY, Advocate} IOPUCI 2 One CC to SRI A. KRISHNAM RAJU,^{S.C.for Syndicate Bank} [OPUC] 3 Two CD Copies

¶58

MP GJP

¶59

HIGH COURT

¶60

DATED:04/0112024

¶61

r 1 e
o
P*
(a^.r
Iu IIo
,a
F
{\ s o
ou.
st
*
c H1<br>

¶62

ORDER

¶63

WP.No.939 of 2014

¶64

DISMISSING THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

5
Nul

P. Netaji, Hyd. v. Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyd. and Ano.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Netaji, Hyd. v. Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyd. and Ano.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Ramadhuta Creations Vs Telugu Desam Party

All India Crop Biotech Association of India, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs M/s. Police Officers Association Adilabad Unit

Bontha Rammohan Vs Union of India

Mancherla Renuka Reddy Vs Muddasani Girija Reddy

Cox and Kings (India) Private Limited, Vs Hemant Gupta