Telangana High Court
WP/17257/2006 of Mohinuddin Ahmed Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Overseas Branch, Somajiguda on 26 December 2006
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No.17257 of 2006 Dated: December 26, 2006 Between: Mohinuddin Ahmed, S/o. late Ghulam Mohammed Samadani, Proprietor, Classic Lodge, Situated at 2nd floor, 21 Century Commercial Complex, bearing
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
Writ Petition No.17257 of 2006
Dated: December 26, 2006
Between:
Mohinuddin Ahmed, S/o. late Ghulam Mohammed Samadani,Proprietor, Classic Lodge, Situated at 2[nd] floor, 21 CenturyCommercial Complex, bearing Mpl.No.5-8-171/A, Nampally,Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
And
State Bank of Hyderabad, Overseas Branch, Somajiguda,(represented by Assets Recovery Branch, PreciousPlaza, 4-1-358/1, Hanuman Tekdi, Reddy Hostel Road,Abids, Hyderabad, and 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:
The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of therespondents in proposing to auction the property in question is illegaland arbitrary.
2. It is pleaded that the petitioner is in possession of the premisesbearing No.5-8-171/A, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein he has been running a lodge. It is not in dispute that the third respondent hasavailed certain loan facilities from the first respondent bank by creatingmortgage in respect of the said premises as collateral security. Thefirst respondent bank filed O.A.No.555 of 2002 in the Debts RecoveryTribunal, Hyderabad, against the third respondent for recovery ofamounts due, which was decreed and a recovery certificate dated 07-04-2004 was issued. Pursuant to the same, impugned auctionnotice was issued and aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner filedClaim Petition No.8 of 2006 before the Recovery Officer to exclude theproperty from the proposed auction. While the Claim Petition was stillpending, the present writ petition has been filed with a similar prayer.
3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, none appeared forthe petitioner. However, learned counsel for the respondents placedbefore this court a copy of the order dated 18-08-2006 passed by theDebts Recovery Tribunal in C.P.No.8 of 2006 under which the ClaimPetition was dismissed on merits.
4. In the circumstances, the petitioner, if aggrieved, ought to havechallenged the order in the Claim Petition by availing appropriateremedy under law.
5. The present writ petition cannot be maintained and the same isaccordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
December 26, 2006MRR
__________________JUSTICE G. ROHINI.