Telangana High Court
WP/27693/2005 of G.Sriram Murthy, Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, 5th Floor, Triveni Complex, on 28 December 2005
SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27693 OF 2005 Between: G. Sriram Murthy, S/o. Sri Mallaiah, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.3-5-311, Vitthalwadi, Narayanguda, Hyderabad – 500 029. .. Petitioner AND The Debts Recovery Tribunal
HONOURABLE SRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27693 OF 2005
Between:
G. Sriram Murthy, S/o. Sri Mallaiah,aged about 60 years, Occ: Business,R/o.3-5-311, Vitthalwadi,Narayanguda, Hyderabad – 500 029.
AND
.. Petitioner
The Debts Recovery Tribunal
Rep. by its Presiding Officer
5[th] floor, Triveni Complex,
Abids, Hyderabad – 500 001 & 2 others
.. Respondents
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::
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. M.V. Durga PrasadCounsel for Respondent No.1 : None appeared.Counsel for Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr. M.P. Ugle Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ
This is a petition for quashing demand notice dated 19-04-2003 and sale notice dated 22-11-2004 issued by State Bank ofHyderabad-3[rd] respondent under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation andReconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short ‘the 2002 Act’).
A perusal of the record shows that State Bank of Hyderabad (for short ‘theBank’) filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due toBanks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) before the DebtsRecovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) against the petitionerand one K. Srinvias Prasad for recovery of the loan advanced to the latter alongwith interest. On receipt of the notice of the application filed by the bank, thepetitioner claims to have issued notice dated 21-6-2003 for production andinspection of the relevant documents and then filed I.A. No.1666 of 2003 beforethe Tribunal for issuance of a direction to the Bank to supply the relevantdocuments.
During the pendency of the application by it, the Bank issued notice dated 19-4-2003 under Section 13 (2) of the 2002 Act requiring the petitioner to pay theamount specified therein. After 1 year and about 7 months, the Bank servedpossession notice dated 1-11-2004 on the petitioner. This was followed bynotice dated 22-11-2004 issued under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act.Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal questioning thenotices issued by the Bank under the 2002 Act. The same was registered asS.A.No.190 of 2004 and is pending before the Tribunal.
The petitioner’s grievance is that on the one hand the Bank has deliberatelyrefrained from supplying the relevant information and documents and on theother hand he is being coerced to pay the amount specified in demand noticedated 19-4-2003. His another grievance is that the Tribunal has failed to decideI.A. No.1666 of 2003 and S.A.No.190 of 2004 filed by him and, on that account, he is being deprived of his property rights.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. In ouropinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as premature because it is anadmitted position that the application filed by the petitioner against the noticeissued under Section 13(4) of the Act is pending before the Tribunal. In thatapplication, the petitioner has questioned the legality and proprietary of noticesdated 19-4-2003 and 22-11-2004. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground toentertain his prayer for quashing of the notices.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Tribunal is notdeciding the application filed by his client. If that be so, the only course open tothe petitioner is to make an application to the Tribunal in writing for expeditiousadjudication of its application.
With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed as premature leavingthe petitioner to persuade the Tribunal to decide the application filed by it.
G.S. SINGHVI, C.J.
Date:28-12-2005
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
PV/svs