The High Court · 2025

1. Satish Singirikonda, S/o Late Ramanjaneyulu, 90( N Ryral Road Apt 2. Ashok Singirikonda, S/o. Late Ramanjaneyulu, '10329, I lston Ct, Apt-4, Saint Louis MO-63146, USA Both the petitioners are represented by their GPI Holder Nagamalla RAnadheer S/o Sri Narasimha Samy, Aged about 44 l ears , Occ Business, Rt/o H. No. 4-5138, Pakhala Road, Opp Fish Market. ,larsampet Village & Mandal , Warangal District. .....PETiTiONERS/RE:S'ONDENT Nos. 2&3 AND '1 . Mothe Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Sri Venkat Reddy, Aged (i ' years, Occ. Retired Employee, H.No. 1-7-600, Subedari, Hanumakonda. ...RESPONDEt\l' M/RIT PETITIONER

2. Canaa Bank, ARM Branch, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Autir rized Officer 3. Sangepu Ramesh, Advocate Commissioner, Flat No.201, M? )asri Classic Apts, Dwarakapuri Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-500082. ...RESPONDENTS/REl; )ONDENT Nos. 1&4 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 vacate the interim orders dl:.15.O4.2024 passed by this Hon'ble court in W.P.No.9664 of 2024 and dismiss the above W.P. No.9664 ot 2024 as not maintainable, and award exemplary costs in favour of the answering Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO REP SRI. GOVARDHAN REDDY JOUNDLA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI DISHIT BHATTACHARJEE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3 SRI A. ABHINANDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4:- The Court made the following: ORDER / 9"s'' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPI KA UTRIT PETITIO N No. 9664 OF 2o24 ORDER: petitioner claims to be the absolute I wner and possessor of property vide Flor-tsr: NO. 1-1/14, l-1,13, 1-1116, l-119, 1'1110 and 1-1/1i situated at Main Road, Narsampet Village and Gram Panchayat, Warangal Distri t, having purchased the same in an aucti()l), pursuant to tht ;ale noticc dated 13.07.2017 for a saie ci-,nsideratioq of Ra'l ,1O,OO0/- While so, Respndent llo.4 cial:ning to be iht Acivocate Commissioner appointed br- ttit: Debts Recovery Tr bunal-I al- Hyderabad in connection lr-ith S A'No' 288 of 20l(' issued the impugned notice datged 12.O3.'.n24 which was nol recived b1' petitoenr. It is stated, Respndcnis 2 and 3 claimirr; to be the legal heirs of principal borror.r'e;- ol the subject propt rqy, hence, the Tribunal appointged Respdnent NO.4 as th: Advofatge Commissioenr vide order date<l () I .O3.2O21 in M 1. Yo. 39 of 2023 in S.A.No. 288 ol 2016.

1. 1. It is also stated, petitoenr was not it, re of ithc proceedings stated supra. It is thc grievance of petitrr 'nr that aft er seven years, even without hca,'ing him, unilatere ily, behind -/ I 2 his back, respdnent bank and unofficial respondents in active collusion with erach other by playing fraud on him as well as on the Debts Recovery Tribunal_ 1, Hyderabd obtained tJre docket order dated 07.O3.2O24 whrern Respdnent NO.4 was appointed as Advocate Commissioenr under SARFAESI Act ald thereafter, Respdnent NO.4 issued ttre impugned notice stipulated date as 19.O3.2023 for execution of warrant. 2. Respondcnt bank hled counter stating that Petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), rvhich passed the impugned order dated O1.O3.2024 in M.A. No 39 of 2023 leading to issuaace of Notice dated 12.O3.2024 by- Respondent No.4. It is stated, the judgments of the l{on'bre Supreme court in tur/s south Indidn Bank Ltd. u. Naveen Matheu phttip [()iuil Appeal Nos. 2O231, State Bank of Tyaua.ncore a. Mqtheut I{.C.l and United Bc,nk oJ India a. Satganaatl Tondon2 clearly mandates that Petitioner shoujd have approached the DRT under Section 17 of the 2OO2 Act primarily instead of the High Court under JZOIa scc online sc 551 - (2O1O) a scc I,o " I \ f Artrcle 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the writ pel,i.i >n is liabie to be dismissed on this grounC.

2.1. Further, it is stared, Petitioner was rrrayed as respondent in M.A. 39 of 2023 bur he wilfully abserL -^d himself. Despite this, Petitioner filed I.A. No. 895 of 2024 p't ].ing to set aside the ex-parte order dated 07.O2.2O24 appointir g Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of t re subject property. Petitioner has altern:rLive remedy befor,: the Debts Recovery Tribunal which he has invoked, anc may also challenge the docket order daLe<i A1.O4.'2O24 befo e thc said Tribunal, instead, he is fontm shopping and rr-,i; eading the Court.

2.2. This respondent submits that S.A. No. i 88 of 2016 frled by legal heirs of the borrower (Respondents 2 rnd 3) was allowed, and the sale notice datecl 13.O7.2O 17 u't r set aside. Consequently, all the subsequent actions, inclucl ng sale to Petitioner under that saie notice, arc viLiaterl However, Petitioner chose not to Appeal against the r) der dated 07 .O5.2019 . The Supreme Courl has clearly held t-L : t once sale under SARFAESI Act is set aside, the auction purclL, ser has no ,t right other than tenancy rights. Hence, Petitioner has no cause of action for the Writ Petition.

2.3. lt is lurther statcd that Petitioner approached the Court w'ith unclean hands and misrepresented the facts. He is falsely alleging ignorance of S.A. No. 288 of 2016, attempting to overcome delay and laches and retain possession. The docket order dated O5.O7.20 18 records notice was refused by Pctitioner, thus, he is gtiiltl' cil suppressing facts. The true facts are, respondent bank sanctioncd credit facilities to partnership firm IM/s Shree Amrutha Naravana Agro Industries, with Mr. S. Narayana as Nlanaging Partncr, mortgaging the Schedule Property. The borrower defaulred and the loan account was declared NPA on 30.O4.2012, initiating SARFAESI proceedings. During pendency, Managing Partner expired on O2.O9.2014. The Bank issued e-auction on 17 .O8.2O17 , wherein Petitioner participated and became the highest bidder and was registered with Sale Certificate dared 18.09.2017. After sale, legal heirs (Respondents No.2 & 3) hled s.A. 288 of 2016 before the Tribunal challenging sale noti<:c dated 16.06.2016; the Tribunal allou,ed SA on 07.O5.2019. sctting aside sale notice. Despite the o;der, property still remains u,ith Petitioner who violates the I \ said order by not vacating. Subsequently, Borrowers represented by Sri S. Madhava Shankar appliecl frrr settlement under OTS uide letters datecl 13'07 2018, 2a'i-l 2O18 and Ol.O2.2Olg, exciuding properties sotd in 2OI7 e a-:liotr from their requests. Borrowers' OTS Ietter dated 13Oi2O2 1 rvas sanctioned by Bank uide letter dated 17 06 2021' cttvering accounts of M/s Shree Amrutha Narayana Agro Inc I strics and Ashoka Industries for Rs. 10.70 Crore sille lr occcds of auctioned property, Rs. 45, iO,0OO/-, rvere a<ljr stecl' and Schedule Property was excludcd from OTS terms 'r:gal hcirs furnished affidavits for release of property documen cxt:luding Scheduled Property. It is further stated. Order in M.A. Nc. ;9 o[ 2023 2.4. seeks physical possession of schcdule properW fro I Petitioner to Respondents 1 and 2. Bank intends to recall Ol S sanction order dated 17.06.2021, as the said order is vitiat 'rl try DRT order dated 07.O5.2O19. Petitioncr and Responcierr s I and 2 have no rights over property now and pctitioner s I rll transfer possession for resale. Respondent Bank denics failure to inlorr I Pctitioner

2.5. about setting aside of e-auction; Petitioner was I lortned bv I letter dated 24.07.2023 delivered via RPAD on 28.07.2023 but he did not comply rvith the same, compelling the Tribunal to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. Advocate Commissioner executed warrant of possession on 3O.O3.2024 as per tlle order dated O1.03.2024 and filed report on 76.04.2024. Petitioner frled I.A. Nos. 894 and 895 seeking to condone delay and set aside ex-parte order in these proceedings. I

3. Heard Sri Kadaru L,r:Lbhakar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri J. Govardhan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for Respondent No.l and Sri A. Abhinandhan Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3.

4. As rightly contendcd by the respondent bank, Petitioner has alternative eflicacious remedy under the SARF'.AESI Act'\ ahd the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal which remains the :rppropriate forum for adjudication of such disputes. S.A. No. 288 of 2016 filed by legal heirs of the borrower i.e. Respondents 2 and 3 was allou,ed by order dated O7.O5.2O19 anci sale notice d:ired 73.07.2017 was set aside. Consequently, all the subscquent actions, including sale of subject property to Petitioner under that sale notice, are I, a". vitiated. However, Petitioner did not hle any Appeal r ues tioning the order dated 07.05.2O19. The Hon'ble Aper Cour -rad clearlv held that once sale under SARFAESI Act is sei aside, the auction purchaser has no right other than tenir rcy rights. Hence, Petitioner has no cause of action to hle the \t/ 'it Petition. The ciaims as regards titie and possession based rn auction sale is rendered void by the Tribunal and the sail order has become final.

5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is lisposccl of with liberty to Petitioner to pursue remedies in S.A No. 288 of 2016 before the Debts Recover:r, Tribunal I, Hyc t rabad. No costs.

6. Consequently, Miscellaleous Applicati I 'rs, rf ant. shall stand closed. / S /- T, PONNA KRISHNA SI: TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ secrtoru oFFtcER To, '1 . The General RamanjaneYu lu, Holder REPALA

2. The General RamanjaneYulu, REPALA RAME ne CC to SRI 4. One CC to SRI. 5. One CC to SRl. 6. Two CD CoPies BIU Sfo Late Power of Attorney,satish Singiri ond3. so6'li'nvilr nbio Ap('r.to.t062, charl ler AZ 85226, USA' RAMESH. 'pJi""7' "f Attorney, Ashok Sing r konda, Slq' Late io1)"s, e'iltoi ci Api:+, Saint Louis M< -oar+0, USA Holder -ebvnnounN SH. orSHir BHATTACHARJEE Advocate [o 'uc] R. RgHtNnNOHAN REDDY, Advocate [ )PUC] REDDY JOUNDLA, Adr'< cat-e-[oPUC] ^ I i.t t,i T HIGH COURT DATED:1011112025 ORDER WP.No.9664 of 2024 ,: a (_) Y '.)' ! .) \ .,:1, ,...,.-' 1t t, Hfi t), '{..\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS