Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Suma Refineries Private Limited, vs The Andhra Bank on 3 July, 2019
Author: G. Shyam Prasad
Bench: G. Shyam Prasad
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
And
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
Writ Petition No.7115 of 2019
ORDER
[Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti] This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking verbatim the following relief/s:
"..to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in assigning the debt under Assignment Deed dated 27-09-2017 in favour of the 3rd respondent and to further declare that the consequential action of the respondents 3 and 4 herein in proceedings to recover the debt amount under SARFAESI Act, 2002 by duly violating the provisions and rules therein as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Article 1, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent to follow the procedure envisaged under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
We have heard the submissions of Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner; and, of Smt. V. Dyumani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 & 4. It is stated that in view of the assignment made by the respondents 1 & 2 in favour of the respondents 3 & 4, respondents 1 & 2 are not necessary parties. We have perused the material record.
The case of the petitioner is this: -
The petitioner company is registered under the Indian Companies Act. It was incorporated in the year 2009. The main activity of the petitioner company is refining palm oil, stearic acid and bio-diesel. The petitioner company obtained a loan from the 2nd respondent bank altogether to a tune of Rs.17.45 Crores for its business from time to time during the period 2009-2014 under Accounts Nos.TL A/c.No.010030100002494, 010030100009789 and CC A/c.No.100013100001219 respectively. Another loan account has already been cleared and was closed. The industry actually commenced during the year
2 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 2012. The petitioner company paid certain amounts towards discharge of the loan amount. On account of certain reasons beyond the control of the entrepreneurs, the industry could not be run in an organized and profitable manner. While availing the above said loans, 60 properties have been mortgaged which are industrial land, machinery, two residential flats situated in Hyderabad besides other house sites approved by DTCP situated in and around Rajamahendravam urban area. Between the years 2009 and 2014, the petitioner company paid an amount of rupees nine crores and as on 2014 the outstanding amount with interest is about rupees sixteen crores. In order to settle the amount, the petitioner company requested the 2nd respondent bank to release partially some of the properties. The 2nd respondent bank considered the said request and accordingly released the properties, partially, and an amount of rupees ten crores out of sixteen crores has been paid. The balance amount outstanding is rupees six crores. About 19 properties are thus released and the remaining secured properties are 41 and they are under mortgage with the 2nd respondent bank. Despite best efforts of the Directors of the petitioner company, the industry could not function at full scale and adequate income was not generated. Therefore, the petitioner company fell in arrears. Even in such circumstances also, the petitioner company to keep the industry live paid considerable amounts to the 2nd respondent bank, by taking hand loans from third parties. The 2nd respondent bank declared the asset as a Non Performing Asset [NPA] on 02.07.2016; and, issued a notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ['SARFAESI Act', for short] by duly showing outstanding amount of Rs.5.97 crores. The amount due could not be paid by the petitioner company due to various reasons beyond its control, including shortage of power and power restrictions imposed by the Government, which continued for a good length of time. On the 2nd respondent bank declaring the 3 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 petitioner company as NPA, the petitioner company filed WP.no.32275 of 2016. But the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the relief claimed is premature and the petitioner company has to wait till further steps under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are taken. The petitioner company filed Securitization Application in SA.no.253 of 2016 along with an interlocutory application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the petitioner company to deposit 10% of the outstanding amount within eight weeks time. The petitioner company could not comply with the said direction. The 2nd respondent bank has taken symbolic possession of the mortgaged properties before filing of an appeal. During the demonetization period, the 2nd respondent bank has given circular duly relaxing two months period for payment of EMIs. The petitioner company could not deposit the said amount in terms of the orders of the Tribunal due to the above mentioned reasons and duly sought extension of time. The Tribunal was pleased to consider and extend time for another period of eight weeks. During that period, the petitioner company paid rupees ten lakhs out of sixty lakhs, which is 10% of the outstanding. Since the balance amount out of sixty lakhs was not paid, the Tribunal vacated the order. The said SA was dismissed, on 02.08.2017. The petitioner company sought rehabilitation and restructuring by letter, dated 18.03.2017, as per RBI guidelines, dated 01.11.2012, issued for rehabilitation of sick micro and small enterprises. The request was renewed on 22.03.2017. A letter was addressed to the District Collector, on 23.03.2017. On 23.03.2017, the 2nd respondent bank refused to restructure, on the ground that the petitioner unit is already classified as NPA. On 24.03.2017, possession of mortgaged properties was taken. The 2nd respondent bank issued auction notice, dated 15.05.2017, duly mentioning the outstanding amount as Rs.6.62 Crores by showing the plant and machinery in the auction notice, however, without showing the other mortgaged properties. The auction date was fixed 4 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 as 16.06.2017. The petitioner company addressed letters, dated 10.05.2017 and 13.06.2017, for restructuring the account and paid Rs.15 lakhs to prove its bona fides. The bank has not responded to the said requests. The auction did not take place on the said date, as no bidder turned up. Second auction notice was issued, on 19.09.2017, showing plant and land. Rs.5.95 Crores has been fixed as upset price. The auction date is fixed as 20.10.2017. Without verifying as to any bidders would come forward pursuant to the said auction notice, the 2nd respondent bank unilaterally cancelled the auction. Later, on 03.10.2017, a paper notification was issued stating that the auction notification, dated 19.09.2017, is cancelled. Without intimating the petitioner company, the 2nd respondent bank has assigned the outstanding amount of the petitioner company to the 3rd respondent, on 27.09.2017, for an amount of Rs.4.5 Crores. The petitioner company came to know of the said fact on receiving a demand letter, dated 07.10.2017, addressed by the Vice President of respondents 3 & 4. A perusal of the said demand letter disclosed that the loan account was assigned by the bank to respondents 3 & 4 and accordingly they demanded to pay Rs.7,24,30,157/- within thirty days. The petitioner company submitted a representation, dated 08.11.2017, duly informing them that the company would pay Rs.5.70 Crores in 48 months by duly mentioning the payment schedule. Inspite of the fact that the value of the assets is much higher than the amount due, the 2nd respondent bank, instead of going for auction to recover the dues, assigned the debt to the 3rd respondent for a lesser amount than the amount to be recovered from the petitioner company. Respondents 3 & 4 also did not pay the entire amount immediately and the 2nd respondent gave four years time to repay the said amount. Though the amount recoverable is around 8 crores, the assignment was entered into between the bank and respondents 3 & 4 for Rs.4.50 crores. The said fact establishes the mala fide intention of the bank and its failure to implement RBI guidelines for 5 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 restructuring the petitioner company. When the value of the assets of the petitioner company that are mortgaged with the 2nd respondent bank is higher than the loan amount due to the bank, the 2nd respondent bank is supposed to follow the RBI guidelines. The petitioner company repaid more than 60% of the loan amount and became sick for reasons beyond its control. No sensible banker would handover this type of unit to the Asset Reconstruction Company, when the debt is having substantial security and when there is every chance for recovery of the entire amount by auctioning the properties. When there is every chance for revival and rehabilitation of the unit of the petitioner company by providing need based facilities, the bank preferred to transfer the properties to respondents 3 & 4. Even the petitioner company is ready to arrange, within a period of six months to one year, payment equal to that of the amount agreed to be received by the bank from respondents 3 & 4. This the petitioner company could have done by putting some properties to sale. Though the property was transferred by respondents 1 & 2 by way of assignment to respondents 3 & 4, in order to amicably settle the issue, this petitioner did not question the said transfer/assignment and gave a letter, dated 08.11.2017, with an offer. Respondents 3 & 4 addressed a letter, dated 22.11.2017, restructuring the loan by putting forward a payment schedule. They did not provide an opportunity to restructure the company in terms of the guidelines issued by RBI. The petitioner paid Rs.1,10,00,000/- to the respondents 3 & 4 after the loan was restructured. Due to unavoidable circumstances, it fell in arrears of instalments mentioned in their letter, dated 22.11.2017. A notice, dated 18.03.2019, was issued by the 4th respondent under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act stating that the outstanding amount is Rs.7,24,30,157/- as on 16.09.2017. It is stated that the amount due as on 28.02.2019 is Rs.7,78,56,824/- and that the asset has already been declared as NPA by the 2nd respondent bank, on 30.06.2016. The earlier restructuring 6 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 granted in favour of the petitioner, under letter dated 26.09.2018, was recalled as the instalments are not paid. However, the letter, dated 26.09.2018, was never received by the petitioner. The amount of Rs.1.10 Crores, which was paid, as stated above, was never properly credited to the loan account as could be seen from the notice, dated 18.03.2019, issued under 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In the letter, dated 22.11.2017, the outstanding amount was mentioned as Rs.7,36,88,000/- as on 31.10.2017; after the said date Rs.1.10 Crores was paid. In the recent notice, dated 18.03.2019, issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the outstanding amount as on 16.09.2017 was shown as Rs.7,24,30,157/-. This itself shows as to how the financial institutions are acting with the loan accounts of the borrowers. It was further stated in the said notice that the possession notice issued by the 2nd respondent bank on 24.03.2017, holds good. An explanation, dated 30.04.2019, was submitted by the petitioner. The flaws in adopting the procedure and in the assignment of the account under the assignment deed are categorically mentioned in the representation. Out of 41 mortgaged properties, only two properties were shown in the notice, dated 18.03.2019. Bank has to mention all the mortgaged properties and outstanding amount in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The said requirement was violated. Once the bank has assigned the debt to the 3rd respondent, whatever transpired earlier does not hold good and the 3rd respondent has to proceed from the beginning, as per the procedure under law. The RBI guidelines provide for rehabilitation and restructuring of the petitioner company. The petitioner is ready to pay the amount mentioned in the deed of assignment between respondents 1 & 2 and respondents 3 & 4, provided the assets of the petitioner are released and some time is granted. In the assignment deed, time was provided to 4th respondent upto 4 years for payment of the amount mentioned in the deed of assignment. The petitioner is asking the 4th 7 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 respondent repeatedly to grant time and facilitate payment in instalments and allow rehabilitation and restructuring. Instead of granting the said requests, the respondents colluded and entered into the deed of assignment. With good intentions, maximum amount was settled and the petitioner is further interested in settling the account, as the petitioner has no intention to invite litigation and fight against financial institutions. Even 3rd respondent was requested for settling the matter amicably. Had the 2nd respondent bank informed the petitioner while assigning the debt, the petitioner ought to have settled the account. The petitioner secured a person, who came forward to join the petitioner company and settle the debt due to the financial institution. The bank was also informed of the same. Not informing about the assignment is nothing but infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The whole action of respondents in declaring the asset as a NPA and their further acts in going ahead with the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act basing on the unconcluded assigned contract is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Though an auction was proposed, the same was cancelled on account of collusion. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
It is pertinent to note that in the prayer in the writ petition, the challenge is only to the assignment deed executed by the 2nd respondent bank in favour of the 3rd respondent and the consequential action of respondents 3 & 4 in proceeding to recover the debt amount under the SARFAESI Act; a direction was sought to the 3rd respondent to follow the procedure envisaged under the said Act and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Yet, in the IA filed in the writ petition, a relief to direct the respondents not to take coercive steps pursuant to Section 13(2) notice under the SARFAESI Act was sought.
8 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 The case of the respondents 3 & 4 as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, in brief, is this:
The writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner availed credit facilities from the 2nd respondent and committed default in repayment of the same. As such, the 2nd respondent was constrained to classify the account as NPA. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and issued demand notice, dated 02.07.2016, under Section 13(2) of the said Act. Challenging the said proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent, writ petitioner filed WP.no.32275 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said writ petition was dismissed as premature vide orders, dated 21.10.2016. The petitioner thereafter filed SA.no.253 of 2016 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The Tribunal, vide orders, dated 17.1.2016, directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the outstanding liability within 45 days. As the petitioner failed to comply with the said interim order, the Tribunal dismissed the said SA vide orders, dated 02.08.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another SA.no.220 of 2017 before the DRT, Visakhapatnam. The said SA was also dismissed by the DRT. Respondent no.3 is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. It is also a Securitization and Asset Reconstruction Company within the meaning of Section 2(za) of the SARFAESI Act having its registered and corporate office at Raja Praasadamu, 4th floor, Wing 1, Plot No.6, 6A & 6B, Masjid Banda Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad. 2nd respondent assigned the debt of the petitioner, along with the underlying securities under assignment deeds, dated 27.09.2017, in favour of respondents 3 & 4. Therefore, respondents 3 & 4 stepped into the shoes of 2nd respondent. After assignment of the debt, petitioner vide letter, dated 08.11.2017, approached the 4th respondent for restructuring of the debt. Respondent no.4 vide letter, dated 22.11.2017, agreed to restructure the debt, subject to the terms and
9 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 conditions mentioned in the said letter. The petitioner duly accepted all the terms and conditions of the sanction letter and in token thereof signed the said letter. The petitioner also executed restructuring agreement, dated 20.12.2017. The petitioner also acknowledged the debt vide acknowledgment of the debt, dated 20.12.2017. The petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the restructuring agreement, dated 20.12.2017. The 3rd respondent vide letters, dated 02.04.2018, 15.04.2018 and 03.08.2018, advised the petitioner to pay the overdues immediately and regularize the account. The 3rd respondent vide letter, dated 04.09.2018, informed the petitioner that the petitioner violated the terms & conditions of the sanction. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent vide letter, dated 26.09.2018, informed the petitioner that in view of the petitioner's default in payment of the restructured debt, as per the payment schedule, the sanction accorded was withdrawn with immediate effect.
Thus, the 3rd respondent was constrained to invoke the provisions of SARFAESI Act and issued fresh demand notice, dated 18.03.2019, demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.7,78,56,824/- together with interest from 28.02.2019, till date of payment. The said demand notice is issued in respect of Flat No.304 situated at Guttalabegumpet, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District, Telangana belonging to Uppuluri Venkata Satyanarayana and Flat No.404 situated at Guttalabegumpet, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District, Telangana belonging to UVV Kasi Nagar Kumari. 2nd respondent is vested with powers to assign the debt with underlying securities and the 4th respondent is empowered to accept the assignment. There is no need to take consent from the petitioner. Respondents 2 & 4 are within their rights. Petitioner has no locus standi to question the assignment in favour of the 4th respondent. Petitioner having accepted the assignment in favour of the 4th respondent and having agreed to restructure the debt subject to terms & conditions mentioned in the 10 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 said letter and the petitioner having failed to comply the said terms and conditions is not entitled now to question the assignment in favour of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner has no right, title and interest in the properties covered under fresh demand notice, dated 18.03.2019, and the owners of the said properties are not before the Court. They are deemed to have waived their right to challenge the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent and as such the petitioner is not entitled to seek stay in respect of the properties covered under the said demand notice. The petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent from Kondapur in Ranga Reddy District in respect of properties located at Guttalabegumpet in Ranga Reddy District which are outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Vide letter, dated 30.04.2019, objections were raised by this petitioner to the demand notice, dated 18.03.2019. The owners of the properties have not raised any objections. The petitioner has no right and interest in the properties covered under the demand notice, dated 18.03.2019. 3rd respondent vide reply, dated 07.05.2019, answered the objections. It is not correct to say that 3rd respondent is not entitled to issue demand notice only for two properties out of 41 mortgaged properties. In fact in the demand notice, dated 18.03.2019, the 3rd respondent categorically stated that earlier demand notice, dated 02.07.2016, the possession notice, dated 09.09.2016, and physical possession taken by the bank on 24.03.2017, in respect of other secured assets still holds good and no previous notice stands withdrawn as regards the properties mentioned in the notice. The 3rd respondent is entitled to issue any number of 13(2) demand notices in respect of different properties and there is no law to prohibit or to say that only single demand notice is to be issued for all the secured assets. It appears that the petitioner in order to create an impression that the Court have jurisdiction filed e-auction notices 11 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 relating to other properties, which are located in East Godavari District, which are not subject matter of demand notice, dated 18.03.2019. 3rd respondent issued possession notice, dated 04.06.2019, in respect of the properties covered under the demand notice, dated 18.03.2019. If the petitioner has any grievance, he may approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Respondents 3 & 4 have duly followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder while issuing notices under Rule 8(1) & (2). The allegations contra are not true. The petitioner came to the Court with unclean hands. The petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The facts discernable from the pleadings, the submissions made in line with the pleadings and from the content of the documents filed by both the sides may be stated, in brief, as follows:
The petitioner availed credit facilities from the 2nd respondent bank. For non payment of the amounts due to the 2nd respondent bank, the account was classified as NPA and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act are invoked and a demand notice, dated 02.07.2016, under Section 13(2) of the said Act was issued by the 2nd respondent bank to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings initiated by the bank by filing WP.no.32275 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said writ petition was dismissed as premature vide orders, dated 21.10.2016. The petitioner also filed SA.no.253 of 2016 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal [DRT], Visakhapatnam, challenging the said action initiated by the 2nd respondent bank. The Tribunal, vide orders, dated 17.11.2016, directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the outstanding liability within 45 days. As the said condition imposed in the said order was not complied with, the interim order was vacated and the Tribunal dismissed the said SA vide orders, dated 02.08.2017. The petitioner also filed another SA.no.220 of 2017 before the DRT, Visakhapatnam. The same was also
12 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 dismissed by the DRT. While so, the 2nd respondent bank assigned the debt of the petitioner along with underlying securities in favour of respondents 3 & 4 under assignment deeds, dated 27.09.2017. 3rd respondent company being represented by its authorized officer and the Chief Executive Officer is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and also a Securitization and Asset Reconstruction Company within the meaning of Section 2 (za) of the SARFAESI Act. On account of the said assignment of the debt, respondents 3 & 4 stepped into the shoes of 2nd respondent bank.
The petitioner now contends that the action of the 2nd respondent bank in assigning the debt under assignment deed, dated 27.09.2017, in favour of the 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary. However, after assignment of the debt, the petitioner vide letter, dated 08.11.2017, approached the 4th respondent - CEO of the 3rd respondent company with a request to restructure the debt. The 4th respondent vide letter, dated 22.11.2017, agreed to restructure the debt subject to certain terms and conditions, which are mentioned in the said letter. The petitioner also executed a restructuring agreement, dated 20.12.2017, and acknowledged the debt vide acknowledgment, dated 20.12.2017. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the restructuring agreement, dated 20.12.2017. The 3rd and 4th respondents by their letters informed the petitioner to pay the overdues and regularize the account. In view of the default committed by the petitioner, sanction accorded was withdrawn and the 3rd respondent invoked provisions of SARFAESI Act and issued fresh demand notice, dated 18.03.2019, demanding outstanding amount due with interest due from 28.02.2019 till date of payment. The said demand notice was issued in respect of Flat No.304 and Flat No.404 situated at Guttalabegumpet, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District, Telangana, which belong to Uppuluri Venkata Satyanarayana and UVV Kasi Naga Kumari respectively. Thus, even as 13 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 per the admissions in the pleadings and the above conduct of the petitioner, it is obvious that the petitioner, who has not questioned the assignment at the inception and who has accepted the assignment and approached the respondents 3 & 4 for restructuring of debt and acceded to the restructuring agreement but failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the restructing agreement, dated 20.12.2017, cannot turn around and cannot be heard to say that the assignment is illegal or bad in law. It is not in dispute that the law permits such assignment. Thus, the petitioner is in-fact estopped by its own conduct from questioning the assignment. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioner cannot question the assignment on any grounds much less the grounds alleged in the writ petition.
In this writ petition, the challenge is not to the notices issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and in fact no relief assailing the said notice is claimed in the writ petition. However, in the interlocutory application, a relief directing the respondents not to take coercive steps pursuant to the notice, dated 18.03.2019, under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act is sought. Admittedly, the petitioner challenged Section 13(2) notice by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said writ petition was dismissed as premature. Thereafter, in the SA filed before the DRT, an interim relief directing the petitioner to pay 10% of the outstanding liability is granted. Even that interim order could not be complied with. Therefore, the interim order stood vacated and eventually the said SA was dismissed. Another SA was also filed and was dismissed is the contention of the respondent bank; and, it is not in dispute. The petitioner did not challenge the said notice in this writ petition as his earlier attempts to challenge the said notice proved futile. Hence, and for the reasons assigned, we find that the petitioner cannot seek a relief directing the respodnents not to take coercive steps pursuant to the said notice.
14 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 The next contention is that the fresh demand notice, dated 18.03.2019, demanding outstanding amount with interset was issued in respect of Flat No.304 situated at Guttalabegumpet, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District, Telangana belonging to Uppuluri Venkata Satyanarayana and Flat No.404 situated at Guttalabegumpet, Serilingampally, Rangareddy District, Telangana, which belong to UVV Kasi Naga Kumari respectively and that in the demand notice, all the properties, which are mortgaged are not mentioned and hence, the notice is defective. As already noted, the petitioner has not challenged the notices in this writ petition. A plain reading of Section 13(3) of SARFAESI Act makes it plain that notice under Section 13(2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor, in the event of non payment of secured debts by the borrower. Therefore, there is no requirement of giving details of all the mortgaged properties in the notice.
The petitioner also inter alia contended that he secured a person, who came forward to join the petitioner company and settle the debt due to the financial institution and that the bank was informed of the same. However, the petitioner does not disclose the details of that person and the capacity of that person to settle the debt due to the financial institution. Such a contention, which is vague, also does not advance the case of the petitioner in view of the relief claimed and our findings supra.
Further, the petitioner also places strong reliance on the variations in the amounts in the notices, which are stated to be outstanding and due. The relevant pleading of the petitioner in the above regard is already extracted supra. If the petitioner is aggrieved of any such discrepancies, he can either seek clarifications or in the alternative approach the DRT. The petitioner was unsuccessful in the proceedings, which he initiated before the Tribunal. The respondents 3 & 4 filed assignment agreements with relevant enclosures and 15 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 also the Statement of Andhra Bank account besides the statement of account maintained by respondents 3 & 4. Further, the demand notices are issued mentioning the necessary details and also the details of the secured assets intended to be enforced by the bank. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the property/secured assets intended to be enforced are within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ranga Reddy District of the State of Telangana. It is fairly conceded that in the event the petitioner desires to assail the said notice/s, he has to approach a proper forum having territorial jurisdiction over the secured assets intended to be enforced and that the petitioner cannot assail the said notice/s in this writ petition filed in this High Court.
On the above consideration and for the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in any one of the contentions raised in the writ petition and as a sequel, we hold that the writ petition is liable for dismissal.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J ______________________ GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J 03.07.2019 Vjl 16 MSRM, J & GSP,J WP_7115_2019 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition No.7115 of 2019 [Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti] 03.07.2019 Vjl