Telangana High Court
WP/28733/2008 of M/s. Parameswara Industries, rep. by its Managing Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, on 30 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.28733 of 2008 Between: M/s. Parameswara Industries, rep. by its Managing Director Parameswara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULUWRIT PETITION No.28733 of 2008
Between:
M/s. Parameswara Industries, rep. by its Managing DirectorParameswara Reddy, S/o. Late Chinna Sai Reddy,Mahammadapur Village, Pangal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Mahaboobnagar Branch, rep. by its Branch Manger 1-7-57, Ayyapa Complex, Opp. Police Head Quarters, Mahaboobnagar-509001. Mahaboobnagar Branch, rep. by its Branch Manger 1-7-57, Ayyapa Complex, Opp. Police Head Quarters, Mahaboobnagar-509001.
2 S. Vanaja Kumari D/o. S.N. Raju R/o. D.No.25/632, Srinivasanagar Colony, Nandyal, Kurnool District. R/o. D.No.25/632, Srinivasanagar Colony, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
3 S. Nagasaraswathi W/o. S.N. Raju R/o. D.No.25/632, Srinivasanagar Colony, Nandyal, Kurnool District. R/o. D.No.25/632, Srinivasanagar Colony, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtmay be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1strespondent in issuing the tender-cum-bid dated 15.12.2008 which waspublished on 16.12.2008 for the sale of collateral security property of thepetitioner without proceeding against primary security and principleborrower as illegal and void and consequently set aside the tender-cum-bid for the sale of petitioner's property i.e., Land and Buildings of RiceMill in Sy.No.22 & 23, Pangal Village & Mandal, MahaboobnagarDistrict.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BOKKA SATYANARAYANA.Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
WRIT PETITION No.28733 OF 2008
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.
ORDER:
Heard both sides.
In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the1[st] respondent Corporation in issuing the impugned notification dated15.12.2008, which was published on 16.12.2008, inviting sealedtenders-cum-bids for sale of the property of the petitioner, which wasoffered as collateral security to the loan obtained by respondents 2 and3 from the 1[st] respondent Corporation, in view of the failure of theprincipal borrowers to repay the loan amount. The petitioner contendsthat the 1[st] respondent is not justified in seeking to sell its propertyoffered as collateral security, by invoking the provisions under Section29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short ‘the S.F.C.Act’), without proceeding against the principal borrowers and primarysecurity offered.
There is no necessity of going into all the details.
Learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent Corporationhas fairly conceded that the 1[st] respondent Corporation ought not tohave proceeded under Section 29 of the S.F.C. Act to sell the property ofthe petitioner offered as collateral security, without proceeding against the principal borrowers.
In the circumstances, the impugned notification dated 15.12.2008,published on 16.12.2008, issued by the 1[st] respondent is set aside sofar as the property of the petitioner shown at item No.11 is concerned. However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the 1[st]respondent Corporation from proceeding against the petitioner inaccordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
30[th] December, 2008
___________________JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
Note:
Issue C.C. in four days.BOIBL