Telangana High Court
M. Bhanu Prakash Reddy vs Canara Bank on 29 October, 2021
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA
Writ Petition No.12286 of 2020
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the certificate of sale issued by respondents No.1 and 2 in favour of respondents No.3 and 4.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that without service of notice under Sections 13 (2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act'), respondents No.1 and 2 had forcibly taken over possession of the schedule property and put it to auction sale.
4. This Court, by order dated 13.08.2020, had issued notice to the respondents and directed that status quo as on 13.08.2020 with regard to possession should be maintained.
5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has referred to the averments made in the counter-affidavit and submits that though petitioner had defaulted in repayment of bank loan, he had made offer of One Time Settlement on 18.03.2020, in which he stated that he was aware of the fact that one of the securities was sold by respondent No.1 ::2::
by way of E-Auction on 27.12.2019 and he would not object to such sale.
6. Learned counsel has also pointed out that petitioner has filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -I, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), on the same cause of action, which has been registered as S.A.I.R.No.418 of 2020.
7. Without expressing any opinion on merits, we are of the view that a litigant cannot pursue two remedies at one and the same time. The remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as provided under the statute, is adequate and efficacious, which the petitioner may avail of.
8. Consequently, we request the Tribunal to take up S.A.I.R. No.418 of 2020 filed by the petitioner and decide the same expeditiously and in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order passed on 13.08.2020 stands recalled. Related Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.
10. No costs.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN , J ____________________ DR. C.SUMALATHA, J Date: 29.10.2021 Lur