Telangana High Court
WP/38975/2013 of Sri Vennu Madhava Rao, Vs The Chief Manager, on 31 December 2013
G. ROHINI and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT PETITION No.38975 of 2013 Date: December 31, 2013 Between: Vennu Madhava Rao. … Petitioner And 1. The Chief Manager, The Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Hyderabad & 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE Ms.
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIandHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY
WRIT PETITION No.38975 of 2013
Date: December 31, 2013
Between:
Vennu Madhava Rao.
… Petitioner
And
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.
1. The Chief Manager,
The Indian Bank, Zonal Office,
Hyderabad & 2 others.
… Respondents
* * *
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIand
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY
WRIT PETITION No.38975 of 2013
O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G. Rohini)
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that auctionnotice dated 29.11.2013 issued by respondents 1 and 2 invokingthe provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction ofFinancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short’ the Act’) is arbitrary and illegal.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
A perusal of the impugned auction notice shows that the3[rd] respondent society committed default in payment of loanavailed from the 2[nd] respondent Bank and therefore the propertywhich is mortgaged by the 3[rd] respondent is brought to sale interms of the provisions of the Act.
As could be seen, the writ petitioner claims title to theproperty which is brought to sale through one Vennu Latchaiah bysuccession. It is claimed that the father of Vennu Latchaiah wasthe Pattedar of a total extent of land admeasuring Ac.32.13 guntasand the property in question forms part of the same.
However, even as per the own version of the writ petitioner,a registered sale deed dated 26.10.1962 was executed in favour ofthe 3[rd] respondent society in respect of the very same property byone Abdul Majid.
Thus, there is a serious dispute with regard to the titleclaimed by the writ petitioner in respect of the property in question. As we could see from the material available on record, the saidproperty is a secured asset and the title deed in favour of the 3[rd]respondent society is deposited with the 2[nd] respondent bank as asecurity to the loan availed by it. Therefore, if aggrieved, theproper remedy for the petitioner is to avail the remedy of appealunder Section 17 of the Act before the jurisdictional Tribunal, but itis not a matter to be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it opento the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal, if soadvised.
Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending inthe writ petition shall stand closed.
______________
G. ROHINI, J
Date: December 31, 2013.
__________________________
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
BSB
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY
WRIT PETITION No.38975 of 2013 (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G. Rohini)
BSB
Date: December 31, 2013