M/S. Kwality Industries And Another v. Bank Of Baroda And Another
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8957 OF 2020 Between:
M/s. Kwality Industries, Plot No.96 and g6 at EPIP in lP, Pashamylaram, in Survey No.118 and 142, situated at APIIC-IALA, Pashamylarama Village and Grampanchayath, Patancheru Mandal, IVedak District presently Sanga Reddy District Represented by its Proprietor Sri. Kothagundla Krishna S/o. Kothagundla Raja Rao Aged about 45 years,Occ. Business Sri. Kothagundla Raja Rao, S/o. K. Nagendram Aged about 67 years, Occ. Business Fl/o. Flat No. 101, Sai Ragahvendra Nivas, l\,4atrussri Nagar, lr,4iyapur, Hyderabad - 500 049 ...pETrroNERS AND
1. Bank of Baroda, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) ROSAR Branch. 6-1-84,1st Floor, Khusru Jung House, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad -500004. Represented by its Authorised Officer.
2. lV/s. Hanuman Exports, Represented by rts Proprietor Sri. Ravi Shankari Goud S/o. Sri. S. Arrjaiah R/o. H.No. 6-10311511, Post office Butting, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, Telangana sate- 500036 ...RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Notice to Vacate Dt. '16-062020 issued by Respondent No.'1 Bank issued as per Orders of the Honourable District Magistrate, Sanga Reddy District directing to vacate the schedule property within (15) days from the date of notice under provisions of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the schedule property and the consequent and consequently declare the proceedings of the Respondent No.
1 Bank under the provisions of Section '14 of the Sarfaesi Act as illegal , atbitary and against provisions of the SARFASI Act and the principles of natural justice and also oppose to Article 14 of Constitution of lndia and set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the Notice to Vacate Dt. 16-06-2020 issued by Respondent No.'
Sanga Reddy District directing to vacate the schedule property within (15) days from the date of notice under provisions of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the schedule property till the disposal of the present Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. K. DESHPANDE Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU Counsel for Respondent No. 2: -- The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.8957 OF 2O2O ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice A.Rajashekeer Reddg, J) This writ petition is filed challenging notice dated 16.06.2020 issued by the 1"t respondent Bank wherein and whereby the same is issued basing on the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Sangareddy, for vacation of the schedule property in the writ petition. Heard Sri G.K.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas Chitturu, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a tenant by virtue of registered lease deed bearing document No. 1465/20 15 dated 29 .Ol .
2015 and without making the petitioner as a party before the District Magistrate in the proceedings under Section i4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the present impugned order is passed, which is illegal. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this court in WP No.2129 ol 2O2O, dated 17.O2.2O2O. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the l st respondent submits that the 1"t respondent Bank is not aware of the lease deed between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, as such, writ petitioner could not be impleaded in the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act and that the mortgage is of the year 2010 and no permission r,",as obtained from the Bank lor leasing out the subject property. In this case, it is to be seen that this Court has considered the similar issue in the judgment dated 17.O2.202O in WP No.
"12. \n Harshad Govardhan v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd.,1 the Supreme Court has categorically held that the tenant in occupation of the property which is being proceeded with under t1.e provisions of the SARFAESI Act ought to be impleaded in the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act, and that an adjudication must be obtained from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as to the validity of the tenar1cy." In view of law laid down by this Court, the impugned notice as well as order passed under Section 74 of the Act, are set aside. However, it is open for the 1st respondent Bank to implead the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It goes without saying that the District Magistrate shall give notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before passing any order against him. After obtaining orders from the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, the 1st respondent Bank can proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with 1aw.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is ailowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER To The District lvlagistrate, Sangareddy District. The Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda and another, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) ROSAR Branch. 6-1-84,'1st Floor, Khusru Jung House, Secretariai Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad -500004.
One CC to Sri G K Deshpande Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Srinivas Chitturu Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 3.
4.
I\4BC
HIGH COURT DATED: 2510612020 s o I 2M0 JUt f, t , c
ORDER
WP.No.8957 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS