Maddala Ramesh Reddy, v. The Union Of India,
* I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V.RAMASUBRAMANI AN * THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI + W.P.NO.12649 of 2018 % Date: 12-04-2018 # Betw een:
Maddala Ramesh Reddy, S/o. Maddala Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. 8-2-601/B/22, Bhanu Cooperative Society, Road No.10, Banjarahills, Hyderabad - 500 028.
..... Petitioner And
1. The Union of India, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Finance & Banks) Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. Central Bank of India, Khairathabad Branch, rep. by its Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant General Manager.
3. M/s. Sudhamsu Exim Private Limited, R/o. 8-2-601/B/22, Bhanu Cooperative Society, Road No.10, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, 500028, rep. by its Managing Cirector Mr. Y. Ramana Reddy, R/o. Door No.2016, Endicos Country Apartments, Street No.1, Czech Colony, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, 500 034.
4. Mr. Bollaraghupathi Rao (Director) (Guarantor), R/o. 10-3-789/3/A, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad-500457.
5. Mrs. Mopuri Rajeshwari (Guarantor), R/o. Flat No.503, 5th Floor, Super Residency, Shaikpet Nala, Adjacent President Garden Function Hall, Hyderabad.
.... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao ^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Mr. K. Lakshman, ASG < GI ST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
VRS,J & JUD,J.
W.P.No.12649/2018 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI WRI T PETI TI ON No.12649 of 2018 ORDER: (Per VRS,J.) The petitioner, who was a director in the 3rd respondent Company, has come up with the above writ petition challenging the failure of the Bank in not taking action against the respondents 3 to 5.
2. Heard Mr. Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Admittedly, the bank has issued a possession notice under Section 13(4) on 01.02.2018 covering two items of properties. These properties do not belong to the petitioner. They belong to the 4th and 5th respondents. Therefore, we do not know how the petitioner is aggrieved. As and when the bank proceeds against the petitioner, it may be open to him to take recourse to law, so that the Managing Director should also be proceeded against if he has personally guaranteed the loan or offered some properties as securities. In respect of a possession notice issued in relation to the properties belonging to Respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner can have no grievance. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN __________________ JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI 12th April, 2018 Js.
VRS,J & JUD,J.
W.P.No.12649/2018 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI WRI T PETI TI ON No.12649 of 2018 12th April, 2018 Js.