Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Thota Seetha Jaya Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 March, 2023

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

               MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No. 6875 of 2023

                              PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.                                                                          OFFICE
       DATE                                 ORDER
No.                                                                           NOTE

HCJ
01. &
    20.03.2023
      RSR, J   NV, J:

                         Heard        learned     counsel       for   the
                petitioner and learned Government Pleader
                for Cooperation appearing for respondent

Nos.1 to 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the joint holder of the property having acquired the rights over the property through a registered sale deed dated 26.11.2005 along with her husband.

It is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner, while working as Branch Manager in District Co-operative Central Bank (DCC Bank), Attili Branch, had committed misappropriation of funds along with three others to a tune of Rs.1,66,56,000/-.

It is further submitted that to that extent the competent authority U/S 60 (1) of the A.P Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, passed a surcharge order dated 18.12.2018 determining the amount which was misappropriated by the petitioner's husband along with three others.

 SL.                                                               OFFICE
      DATE                        ORDER
No.                                                                NOTE

Therefore the same has become final.

                      Pursuant      to      the      surcharge
             proceedings,         now      the     respondent

authorities issued the auction notice in respect of joint property of the petitioner and her husband and other properties of the three others.

As per the auction notice dated 07.02.2023, the auction was proposed to be held today i.e., on 20.03.2023 at 01:00 p.m. By this time the auction proceedings might have been commenced.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the property is the joint property and the petitioner being the joint holder and she has absolute rights in respect of 50% of the property, for the acts and omissions committed by her husband, her property cannot be auctioned. Therefore, the auction notice issued on 07.02.2023 should be stayed and to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader would submit that the surcharge proceedings, under Section 60(1) of the Act, 1964, were issued in the year 2018 against the husband of the petitioner. Moreover, the husband of the petitioner is a SL. OFFICE DATE ORDER No. NOTE debtor under surcharge proceedings and he is the owner of 50% of the subject property. As per the provisions of the Act, 1964, a joint and several liability was contemplated against the misappropriation of funds in respect of the employees of the banks. The auction notice was issued on 07.02.2023. Having known about the notice, the petitioner approached this court at belated stage Hence, she is not entitled for any relief.

Having heard both the learned counsels, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the joint holder of the subject property having acquired the rights over the same through a registered sale deed in the year 2005. Even assuming that there is a joint and several liability on all the persons who have committed misappropriation of funds, but the petitioner is entitled for principles of natural justice and she has to be informed by way of notice about the surcharge proceedings issued against her husband duly serving a copy of the same on her before putting the property for auction. Therefore, for non observation of the principles of natural justice against the petitioner, this Court is prima facie convinced that the auction proceedings should be interdicted.

 SL.                                                              OFFICE
      DATE                        ORDER
No.                                                               NOTE

In view of the forgoing discussion, the 3rd respondent and the 5th respondent herein are directed not to confirm the sale of auction until further orders and also directed not to proceed further in respect of this subject property i.e., the House No.5- 119-1, Attili Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, pursuant to the auction, until further orders.

Since, today is the auction, the auction may go on but the same shall not be confirmed.

W.P.No.6875 of 2023

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 through RPAD and file proof of service in the Registry.

List the matter on 10.04.2023.

In the meanwhile, learned Government Pleader is directed to file counter.

________ NV, J Note: Issue C.C.by 21.03.2023 b/o cbn