Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/29063/2024 of KAVYA FASHIONS Vs HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED on 31 December 2024
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR- AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATl^ WRIT PETITION NO: 29063 OF 2024 ^ Between: 1.
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.
APHC010558342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 29063 of 2024
Bench Sr.No:-44 [3483]
Kavya Fashions and others
...Petitioners
Vs.
HDB Financial Services Limited and others
...Respondents
**********
Advocate for Petitioners:
Mr. K. Rama Koteswara Rao
Advocate for Respondents:
Mr. Hemadri V S S R R Chandrakanth
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 31[st] December, 2024.
P C :
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the initiation of action by the respondents under the SARFAESI Act. It is stated that the very basis for initiation of such proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the notice which is stated to have been issued to the petitioners was never served upon the petitioners.
2. It is stated that whereas the 13(2) notice contained the address of the petitioners as Door No.16-3-82/1, Sharoof Bazar, Salipet, Tenali, in the Registered AD the address is reflected as Morriapet, Tenali instead of Salipet, Tenali.
3. It is stated that the two areas are totally different, notwithstanding the fact that they may be covered under the same pin code and yet, the notice under Section 13(2) which forms the very basis for initiation of action under the SARFAESI Act was not received by the petitioners.
4. It is also urged that, had such a notice been received, the petitioners would have submitted objections in terms of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, which were to be then considered by the respondents – HDB Financial Services Limited, as to why the proposed action initiated by the financial institution was not warranted.
5. Be that as it may, in the present case, we have gone through the documents placed on record, we are satisfied that the address on the Registered AD is not correctly reflected and therefore, the petitioners can be said to have not been served as was the mandate of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act.
6. We, therefore, allow the present writ petition, set aside the orders impugned passed by the respondents - financial institution. All consequential proceedings are also set aside. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate action in accordance with the law, afresh. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ.
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN