Telangana High Court
WP/26560/2006 of M.Prasad Vera Kumar Vs P.H.V.S.Talpa Sai on 22 December 2006
Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26560 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent-Bank in proposing to sell the property bearing No.5-40/3/1 (old), corresponding to new No.7-114/2, Plot No.25, Sy.No.69 part, situated at Bowenpally
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.26560 OF 2006
ORAL ORDER:
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action ofthe 3[rd] respondent-Bank in proposing to sell theproperty bearing No.5-40/3/1 (old), corresponding to new No.7-114/2,Plot No.25, Sy.No.69 part, situated at Bowenpally village, BalanagarMandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is not in dispute that the saidproperty is a secured asset in connection with the loan availed by the2[nd] respondent. Since the 2[nd] respondent failed to discharge theliability, the 3[rd] respondent-Bank initiated the proceedings under theSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets andEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. A copy of the possessionnotice issued by the 3[rd] respondent-Bank, said to have been publishedin the local dailies dated 6.12.2006, shows that in spite of the demandnotice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, the 2[nd] respondent failedto pay the amounts due under the loan account. The petitioners hereinclaimed to have purchased the property in question from therespondents 1 and 2 under an agreement of sale in July, 2006. It ispleaded that pursuant to the possession notice, the 3[rd] respondent istaking steps to sell the property in question by way of public auction. This writ petition is filed contending that since the petitioners are readyand willing to pay the entire debt with interest due to the 3[rd]respondent-Bank, the proposed sale is arbitrary and illegal. Except a copy of the agreement of sale dated 2.7.2006, executed by the 2[nd]respondent and a copy of the possessionnotice dated 25.11.2006, nothing has been placedbefore this Court to show that any sale has been contemplated by wayof public auction. At any rate, if the petitioners are ready and willing topay the entire amount on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent in full satisfaction of the loan availed from the 3[rd] respondent-Bank, it is always open to them to do so. In the absence of anymaterial to show that the petitioners have acquired any right or title inrespect of the property in question, and particularly in the absence ofany allegation that the action of the 3[rd] respondent is contrary to law,the mandamus as sought by the petitioners cannot be issued.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of leaving open to thepetitioners to remit the amount due, in which event the 3[rd] respondent-Bank will consider the same in accordance with law. No costs.
22[nd] December, 2006.Issue CC by Tuesday.(Bo)Kgr ______________(G. ROHINI, J.)
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.26560 OF 2006
22[nd] December, 2006.
Between:M. Prasad Veera Kumar and another. .. Petitioners. And P.H.V.S. Talpa Sai and others. .. Respondents.