Chayanam Venkateswarlu v. Bank Of India, Rep.By Its Branch Manager Tenali, Guntur Dist

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 765 of 2017 ORDER: (Per VRS,J) The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

2.

Heard Mr. P.N. Jagan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. T. Vidya Rani, learned standing counsel for Bank of India, takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3.

Even according to the petitioner, he purchased the property under a Sale Deed, dated 11.06.2015, with full knowledge of the mortgage with the respondent-Bank. In other words, he has taken a calculated risk. Therefore, leaving it open to him to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal with whatever remedies available to him under law, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J _____________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J 5th January, 2017 cbs

VRS,J & GSP,J WP No. 765 of 2017 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN √ AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition No. 765 of 2017 (dismissed) 5th January, 2017 cbs