Writ Petition No. 41 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025
Case Details
High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order by staying all the further proceedings in CrI.M.P. No. 2/2023 pending before the Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, until disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024^ Petition under Section r 151 CPC is praying circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order by staying all the further proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act regarding the property of the Petitioner i.e., a flat bearing Door No.3-123/5, residential unit no.3;, Sai Ganesh Nivas of Yendada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District, until disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P RAJESH BABU/^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7: WRIT PETITION NO: 32933 OF 2023 Between: Nemani Natraj, S/o. Late Ramarao, aged about 49 years, R/o. D. No. 50-79-3, Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. AND ...PETITIONER r 4
1. Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co Operative Urban Bank Ltd, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, D. No. 8-2-680/1 and 2, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
2. Polumuri Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Guruvulu, aged about 59 years, R/o. D. No. 32-26-35, Near Sangeeth Theatre, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam Mandal and District.
3. Uppalapati Venkata Padmavathi, W/o. U. Narasimha Rama Krishna Raju, aged about 46 years, R/o. H. No. 2-3, Panduri Village, Kotauratia Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P.
4. Polamarasetty Balaraju, S/o. Ramu, aged about 46 years, R/o. D. No. 17-16/1, Main Road, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District, A.P.
5. Nayana Nagabhushanam, S/o. Late Appayya, aged about 50 years, Laveru, Kesavarayunipalem, Reddika Veedhi, H. R/o. No. Shkakulam District, A.P. 317,
6. Reddy Surya Rao, S/o. Demudu Reddy, aged about 43 years, R/o. D. Sai Krupa Towers, Near Shankara Matham, No. 49-26-66, TF-3, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, A.P.
7. The Chief Metropolitan Sri Tyagaraja Street, Nehru Nagar, Jagadamba Junction, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. Complex, Magistrate, District Court ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 22^cf the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the proceedings undertaken by the Respondent No. 1 Bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act in CrI.M.P. No. 4/2023 on the file of the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam by initiating steps to auction the property owned by the Petitioner i.e., a flat bearing Door No.3-123/8, residential unit no.6, Sai Ganesh Nivas of Yendada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District under the guise of proceedings against 5 the borrower i.e., Respondent No.4 who has no title or interest over the property as arbitrary, illegal, void, unjust and in violation of SARFAESI Act and against the constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and set aside all the proceedings in CrI.M.P. No. 4/2023 on the file of the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and declare that the Respondent No. 1 Bank has no power to bring the property owned by the Petitioner for sale under SARFAESI Act without proper verification of the title deeds of the Respondent No.4 which is a fraudulent and illegal transaction and does not bind on the Petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition Section 151 CPC is praying circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order by staying all the further proceedings in CrI.M.P. No. 4/2023 pending before the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, until disposal of the above writ * petition. ^ lA NO: 2 OF 2023^ Petition Section 151 CPC is praying circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order by staying all the further proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act regarding the property of the Petitioner i.e., a flat bearing Door No.3-123/8, residential unit no.6, Sai Ganesh Nivas of Yendada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District, until disposal of the above writ petitionr' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7: —- 6 WRIT PETITION NO: 366 OF 2024 Between: Nemani Nataraj, S/o. Late Ramarao, aged about 49 years, R/o. Door No. 3- 123/4, Residential Unit No. 2, Saj Ganesh Nivas, Yendada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. AND ...PETITIONERS
1. Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Officer, D. No. 8-2-680/1 &2, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
2. Main Samuel, S/o. Venkatachalam, aged about 59 years, R/o. D. No. 19-159/2, Sector-1, Sai Madhava Nagar, Naidu Thota, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Uppalapati Venkata Padmavathi, W/o. U. Narasimha Rama Krishna Raju, aged about 46 years, R/o. H. No. 2-3, Panduri Village, Kotauratia Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P.
4. Kona Majji Gowri, W/o. K.V.B. Simhachalam, aged about 40 years, R/o. D. No. 5-33, Kotha Kowada Village, Padnabham Village, Reddipalli, Visakhapatnam District, A.P.
5. Dwarapudi Pavani, W/o. D. Swami Naidu, aged about 33 years, R/o. D. Rajupatrunipalem, 21-145/15, No. Kothavalasa Town, Vizianagaram District, A.P. George School, Saint 0pp.
6. Kothapalli Venu Gopala Gowri Shankar, S/o. Late Venkata Ramana Rao, aged about 55 years, R/o. Flat No. FI, Sai Apartments, North Extension, Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
7. The Chief Metropolitan Sri Tyagaraja Street, Nehru Nagar, Jagadamba Junction, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. Magistrate, Complex, District Court Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Higb-^ ...RESPONDENTS^ 7 Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the proceedings undertaken by the Respondent No.1 Bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act in CrI.M.P. No. 80/2022 on the file of the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam by initiating steps to auction the property owned by the Petitioner i.e. a flat bearing Door No.3-123/4, residential unit no.2; Sai Ganesh Nivas of Yendada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District under the guise of proceedings against the borrower i.e.. Respondent No.4 who has no title or interest over the property as arbitrary, illegal, void, unjust and in violation of SARFAESI Act and against the constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside all the proceedings in CrI.M.P. No. Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate; Visakhapatnam and declare that the Respondent No. 1 Bank has no power to bring the property owned by the Petitioner for sale under SARFAESI Act without proper verification of the title deeds of the Respondent No.4 which is a fraudulent and illegal transaction and does not bind on the Petitioner. ^ lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition Section 151 CPC is praying circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order by staying ail the further proceedings in CrI.M.P. No. 80/2022 pending before the Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, until disposal of the above writ petition.^ lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is praying circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order by staying all the further 8 proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act regarding the property of the Petitioner i.e., a flat bearing Door No.3-123/4, residential unit no.2, Sai Ganesh Nivas of Yendada Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District, until disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7: — The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER r APHC010654982023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Bench Sr.No:-16 [3483] £1 Writ Petition No; 41 of 2024 along with W.P. Nos.32933 of 2023; 366 of 2024 W.P. No.41 of 2024 Palla Lakshmi Vs. ...Petitioner Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Srinivasa Rao Narra Advocate for Respondents: Mr. P. Rajesh Babu CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 11th March 2025 per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ: Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring the facts of the present case within the purview of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P^ whereby the Apex Court had reiterated the principle that when an alternate remedy was available to a person, the resort to extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not permitted unless the Court was satisfied that the case of the petitioner fell ^(2021) 6 see 771 2 HCJ a RC, J W.P. Nos. 41 of 2024 a Batch within any of the exceptions which had been crystallized by the Apex Court as under: “27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged."
2. Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon^ wherein the Apex Court held as under: “55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion care and circumspection.” in such matters caution, greater
3. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court and considering the fact that an equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution India. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. No costs. ^ [(2010)8 see 110 : 2010 INSe 428] /*'■) 3 HCJ a RC, J W.P. Nos. 41 of 2024 a Batch Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M.RAWIESH BABU deputy registrar ' SECTION OFFICER To TF
1. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to Sri P Rajesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Three CD Copies i HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/2025 COMMON ORDER anot;^ g 2 I MAR 2025 Current Section WP.Nos.41 of 2024, 32933 of 2023 & 366 of 2024 DISMISSING THE W.P.s, WITHOUT COSTS