Telangana High Court
M/S. Cheyutha Charitable Trust vs Export Import Bank Of India on 13 October, 2022
Author: P.Naveen Rao
Bench: P.Naveen Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24819 OF 2021
Date:13.10.2022
Between:
M/s Cheyutha Charitable Trust
Having its office at Plot No 443A/56 Road No 86 Jubilee Hills
Hyderabad -500 033 Represented by it Authorized
representative Ms N Pratyusha Reddy
.....Petitioner
And
Export Import Bank of India, Golden Edifice, 2nd Floor,
63639/640, Khairtabad Circle, Hyderabad - 500 004,
Represented by its., Authorised Officer & others
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24819 OF 2021
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao) Heard learned counsel Sri Malipeddi Abhinay Reddy for petitioner and learned counsel Sri B.Harinath Rao for respondents.
2. Ms.Sujana Universal Industries Limited borrowed money from respondent - Bank and M/s. Verma Realtors Private Limited - 3rd respondent stood as guarantor. The borrower defaulted in repayment of loan, necessitating the respondent - Bank to take recourse to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act, 2002). In the process, the respondent - Bank filed application before the concerned Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to secure the physical possession of the secured asset. In Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2020 the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed orders appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner has taken physical possession of the secured asset.
3
3. Petitioner herein established an educational institution on the secured premises. In accordance with the orders passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, petitioner was evicted from the premises. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that many movable assets belonging to the petitioner are still in the premises of secured asset and they are not allowed to remove them.
4. The writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 20.09.2021. Ordinarily, this matter ought to have been filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short 'DRT') under Section 17 of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002. In all matters where petitioner has not availed the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002, and directly filed writ petitions, this Court is relegating petitioner to avail the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002, before the DRT.
5. Though the writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued on 20.09.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he is satisfied if movable assets as mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2022 are permitted to be taken by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank, fairly submits that respondent - Bank has no objection with regard to 4 petitioner taking movable assets lying on the secured premises, if petitioner files an application with details of assets.
7. Recording the same, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, informing the Advocate Commissioner in advance about the date and time when he would take the movable assets. If such application is filed with details of assets, the petitioner be permitted to take away the movable assets in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner, and under the cover of panchanama.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J _____________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO,J Date: 13.10.2022 PT 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NO.24819 OF 2021 Date: 13.10.2022 PT