P.Satyajith Reddy v. Canara Bank And 2 Others
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 21318 OF 2022 Between:
P.satyajith Reddy, S/o P.Ram Reddy, Aged about 54, Occ ; Business, Ri/o Flat No.Bi, Green Vi6w Apartments Jouinalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. .,.PETITIONER AND
1. Canara Bank, Specialized lr,4id Corporate Branch Vista Grand Tower, Rajbhavan Road, Rep. by its Authorized Officer.
2. M/s LN Constructions, Rep.by its I\,4anaging Partner Sri S. Vinay Kumar - Reddy @ Flat No.107, Kaian-Residency Green View Lane, Bowenpally, Sec Hyderabad.
3. K.R.Sudarshan Reddy, S/o Late K.R.Govind Reddy, Aged about 64 years Occ ; Business, AF-3; Stone Valley Apartment, Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34.
.,.RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass order or orders direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the EAuction Sale notice dated 13/04/2022 fixing the date of Auction on 3010412022 on the schedule property-b as illegal, null and void without following due process of law.
l.A.NO:2 OF 2022 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the E- Auction Sale notice dated 1310412022 fixing the date of Auction on 3010412022 on the schedule property-b including confirmation of sale, issuance of the sale certificate and registration of the same.
l.A.NO:1 OF 2022 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent bank to release the schedule property-b and adjust the paid amount Rs.85,00,000/- date- 10-02-2020 in to the main Loan Account and Pending disposal of the appeal.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.K.R.SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : SRI.A.V.S.S.PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER
I r THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHIryAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.21318 of 2o22 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Si Justice Uljal Bhugan) Heard Mr. K.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.V.S.S.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 .
2.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of E- auction sale notice clated 13 .04 .2022 proposing to hold auction sale on 30.O4.2022 of the B-Schedule property. 3.
We find that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.3O146 of 2021, which was disposed of on 25.11.2021 in the following terms: "2. It appears that petitioners had availed financia-l assistance from respondent No.1/Canara Bank, but defaulted in repayment. As a result, respondent No.1/Canara Bank invoked the
L W.P.No.21318 of 2022 provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financia.l Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Acl,2002 (briefly 'the SARFAESI Act' hereinafter) leading to issuance of possession notice under Section 13(4) thereof. Thereafter, sale notice dated 13.10.2021 was issued by the Authorised Oflicer of respondent No. 1/ Canara Bank for sa-le of immovable properties (secured asset) on 29 .71 .2021 .
3.
It is stated that aggrieved by the aforesaid action, petitioners had moved tl e Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Hyderabad (Tribunal) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act which has been registered as S.A.No.232 ol 2021. However, the olfice of Presiding Officer fell vacant on 18.ll.2O2l due to retirement of the incumbent officer on attaining the age of superalnuation. It is at this stage that petitioners have approached this court by the present writ petition.
4.
According to Mr.Dishit Bhattarjee, learned counsel for respondent No. I / Canara Bank, S.A.No .232 ol 2O2l was listed before the Tribunal on 17 .17.2021 , but Tribunal declined to stay the sale notice.
W.P.No.21318 of 2O22 5.
However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Presiding Officer did not want to hear the stay matter on the eve of his superannuation. Now, the office of Presiding Officer is vacant. Not only that, ofhce of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad is also vacant. An aggrieved person cannot be left remediless in such a situation.
6.
Having regard to the orders passed by this court in identical matters, we direct respondent No. 1/ Canara Bank not to take further steps pursuant to sale notice dated I3.lO.2O2l for a period of 45 days from today. It is expected that the of{ice of Presiding Offrcer of the Tribunal will be filled up by that time and S.A.No.232 of 202 I will be taken up for consideration. No further order is called for at this stage.
7.
Writ petition is disPosed of."
4.
Thereafter petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.No. 11515 of 2022 with the grievance that respondent No.l had issued fresh sale notice dated L8.O2.2O22 proposing to hold auction sale of the schedule property on 08.03.2022. This Court by the order dated
I I UB,J A SN,J W.P.No.21318 of 2022 04.O3.2022 disposed of the writ petition b1' directing that if the petitioner deposits 15% of the outstanding dues within 3O days, respondent No.1 would not proceed further with the sale notice dated 18.02-2022. Relevant portion of the order dated 04.03.2022 reads as under:
"4. This Court, by order dated 25.11.2027, in Writ Petition No.30146 of 2O21, directed respondent No. 1/Canara bank not to take further steps pursuart to the sa-le notice dated 13.10.2021 for a period of forty-five (45) days. The said period of forty-five (45) days has expired.
On such expiry, respondent No.1-Canara Bank has issued fresh sa-le notice dated 78.02.2022 proposing to hold auction sale of the schedule property on O8.O3.2022.
5.
From the sa.le notice dated 18.02.2022, we find that the outstanding dues of the petitioners has been quantified by respondent No.1 at Rs.8,38,24,337.74 as on 31.O7.2022.
6.
With the grievaace that there is still no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed.
,7W.P.No.21318 of 2022 7.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and on due consideration, we are of the view that since petitioners have invoked their statutory remedy before the Tribuna.l under Section l7 of the SARFAESI Act it would be just and proper if the petitioners pursue their remedy in accordance with 1aw. Further, if the petitioners deposit 157o of the outstanding dues, as mentioned above, within a period of thirty (30) days from to-day, respondent No.1 shall not proceed further on the basis of the sale notice dated 18.02.2022 which'
in any event, would be subject to outcome of S.A.No.232 of 2021, pending before the Tribunal.
8.
However, we make it clear that if there is any default on the part of the petitioners in making the payment as above, it would be open to respondent No' I to proceed against the petitioners for realisation of the outstanding dues in accordance with law.
g.
This disposes of the writ petition' No order as to costs."
From the order dated O4.O3.2O22, we find that this Court had directed that if the petitioner deposited 15% - -
W.P.No.21318 of 2022 of the outstanding dues within 30 days, respondent No.1 would not proceed with the sale notice but had made it clear that if there was any default on the pa-rt of the petitioner in making the payment as above, it would be open to respondent No.1 to proceed against the petitioner for realization of outstanding dues in accordance with lan,. 6.
Now respondent No.1 has issued sale notice dated 13.04.2022 proposing to hold auction sale of five schedule properties on 28.O4,2022. Outstanding dues of the petitioner has been quantified at Rs.9,07,39,295.OO, 7.
Learned counsel for respondent No.l submits that petitioner did not deposit 15% of the outstanding dues in terms of order dated 04.03.2022, for which respondent No.1 has issued the impugned sale notice dated t3.o4.2022.
8.
According to learned counsel lor the petitioner, ,he and his friend one Mr. S.Srinivas had obtained loan of Rs.94,50,000.00 from TATA Capital, u,herefrom
f\, W.P.No.21318 of 2022 Rs.85,00,000.00 was paid to respondent No.l on 1O.O2.2O2O. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner has not complied with the order dated 04.O3.2022. 9.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that there appears to be a dispute between partners of the firm M/s. LN Constructions. In this connection, the other partner has moved the Commercial Court. The amount of Rs.85,O0,OOO.0O deposited by the petitioner has been kept in a suspense account; and not credited into the loan account of the petitioner. He submits that because of the dispute between the partners, respondent No.1 has not appropriated the said amount to the loan account of the petitioner.
I I
10. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner has not complied with the order of this court. If that be so, respondent No.1 was not justified in issuing the sale notice dated 13.04.2022.
1 1. That being the position, l\re direct that re9Bsndent No.l would be at liberty to appropriate the
W.P.No.2131 8 of 2O22 amount of Rs.85,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner to the loan account of the petitioner. That apart, petitioner shall deposit further amount of Rs.50,00,000/- u,ithin tu,o
(02) weeks from today. If such payment is made, respondent No.1 shall not proceed further with the sale notice dated 73.04.2022 in respect of schedule propertv-B, lr,'hich in any event shall be subject to S.A.No.232 of 2021. filed by the petitioner and which is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad.
72. This disposes of the Writ Petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR NN secrl8ffbrrrcen I ,TRUE COPY// To
1. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Specialized Mid Corporate Branch Vista Grand Tower, Rajbhavan Road.
2. The Managing Partner, tr//s LN Constructions, Sri S. Vinay Kumar Reddy @ Flat No.107, Raran Residency Green View Lane, Bowenpally, Sec Hyderabad.
3. One CC to SRI.K.R.SUNIL KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC]
4. One CC to SRI.A.V.S.S.PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CD Copies
6. One spare copy S.A q
HIGH COURT DATED:2710412022 4I€ r T.E S T e Joo Pz JUL
ORDER
4'
-b t'/ * WP.No.21318 of 2022 'tf o ES PAT CI DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS @("Pt., n['1 o(\ 9:)