Telangana High Court
WP/27442/2005 of V. Haritha Priya, Vs Union of India, Ministry of finace, on 23 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.27442 OF 2005 Dated: 23-12-2005 Between V. Haritha Priya, W/o. T. Suraj, R/o. LIC Model Housing Colony, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore –79 and another. …PETITIONER AND Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary Finance,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.27442 OF 2005
Dated: 23-12-2005
Between
V. Haritha Priya, W/o. T. Suraj,
R/o. LIC Model Housing Colony,
Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore –79
and another.
AND
Union of India, Ministry of Finance,
Rep. by its Secretary Finance,
New Delhi and others.
…PETITIONER
…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:
Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records leading in issuance of theimpugned notice dated 03.12.2005 of respondents 2 and 4 under Section 13 of theSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security InterestAct, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners borrowedcertain amount from the second respondent bank mortgaging certain properties in favour ofthe bank. While so, the second respondent issued a public notice dated 01.10.2005 in alocal daily newspaper under Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon the father of the petitioners to repay an amount of Rs.1,48,19,577/- within sixty days and taking possession of theproperties bearing D.No.3-309 and 3-310 situate at Pagadamnu Greamspet, Chittoor. Inreply to the said publication the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 23.11.2005through counsel stating that the petitioners were minors at the time of taking the loan andthey have no knowledge about the debt and they have a share in the said property. It isfurther stated that partition has also taken place. However, without considering the saidlegal notice the fourth respondent issued the impugned possession notice under Section13(4) of the Act.
Section 17 of the Act states that any person aggrieved by the proceedings under Section13(4) of the Act has got a right to appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
This Court is of the opinion that when an effective alternative remedy of right to appeal to theDebts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act is available to the petitioners, it is notjust and proper to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with aliberty to the petitioners to avail the effective alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act.
______________
V. ESWARAIAH, J
December 23, 2005