A. Gautham Reddy v. The Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE N.V. RAMANA & T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PET IT ION No :31087 OF 2011 ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in creating equitable mortgage over the property of M/s. Hotel Tirumala i.e., premises bezaring No.7-1-46(New), 7-3-23/1(old), premises bearing No.7-1-45(new), 7-3-64/3 (old) along with building
1364.430 sq. yards in Sy.No.1015 (new) 1300 (old) situated at N.H.7, Nirmal Town, Adilabad District belonging to partnership firm of M/s. Hotel Tirumala and issuing notices under Section 13(2) & (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the said property. The case of the petitioner reads as follows: He is a partner in a partnership firm viz., M/s. Hotel Tirumala, having 1/6th share therein and he came to know that the hotel property was mortgaged to the respondent- Bank for obtaining loan by A. Prasanth Reddy and A. Hanumanth Reddy, and as the loan amount was not repaid, the respondent-Bank issued notices under Section 13(2) & (4) of the Act. The schedule property belongs to Hotel Tirumala and there are other agricultural and non- agricultural properties mortgaged the Bank and therefore, the action of the respondents against the properties belonging to a partnership firm on the basis of the personal guarantees of its partners is not sustainable under law and he filed S.A.I.R. No.2392 of 2011 and I.A.I.R.No.1171 of 2011 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Section 17 of the Act on 15.11.2011 and because of the non-functioning of the Tribunal, the matter was not taken up.
Operative part
Hence, he approached this Court by way of this writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he filed the appeal and the application for interim relief before the Tribunal, but the matter was not taken up and therefore, a direction may be given to the Tribunal to take up the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal and the application for interim relief, we feel it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the application in IAIR No.1171 of 2011, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the properties in question. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA, J ____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 1.12.2011 Nn T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE N.V. RAMANA & T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PET IT ION NO :31087 OF 2011 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) Nn
1.12.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.