9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terim order granted by this Court and the sale held by the 1st respondent company has not been confirmed pursuant thereto, the petitioner shall continue to have the benefit of the said interim order for a period of six weeks from today. In the meanwhile, it would be open to him to seek appropriate interim relief from the civil Court. We make it clear that we have not ventured into the merits of the matter and all issues are left open for adjudication by the civil Court. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court. - WRIT PETITION No.9412 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2016 - SRI SANJAY KUMAR AND DR.B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, JJ. For The Petitioner : Sri Sriniva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther formalities, including acceptance of 25% of the bid amount, may be undertaken. The interim order dated 21.03.2016 was extended thereafter from time to time and is in operation as on date. The petitioner claims that his family owned Ac.10.15 guntas in Sy.No.595 and Ac.11.14 guntas in Sy.No.596 of Pedda Amberpet Village. Out of these extents, an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.595 and an extent of Ac.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.596 of Pedda Amberpet Village were stated to have been sold to one Annapurna by his grandfather and other family members. The petitioner further states that, after selling Ac.16.29 guntas in Sy.Nos.595 and 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village, his branch of the family was left with an extent of Ac.4.19 guntas. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank had loaned a sum of ₹ 9,85,00,000/- to the 3rd respondent company in the year 2009 and Uma Devi, a guarantor for the said loan, had offered a secured interest in the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.595 and 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village. As the loan account of the 3rd respondent company was classified as a non-performing asset, the bank issued demand notice dated 04.04.2012 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for payment of a sum of ₹ 11,55,68,131/- with further interest. Due to non- compliance with this demand, the bank issued possession notice dated 25.10.2012 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Under Assignment Agreement dated 30.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by any bank or financial institution. A secured asset under Section 2(1)(zc) of the SARFAESI Act is defined to mean the property on which security interest is created. In turn, Section 2(1)(zf) defines security interest to mean the right, title and interest of any kind whatsoever upon property created in favour of any secured creditor and includes any mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment other than those specified in Section 31. The crucial question that needs to be answered presently is whether any secured interest was created in the subject property, whereby the 1st respondent company, the successor-in-interest of the IDBI bank, can take steps in relation thereto in the status of a secured creditor under the SARFA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act would not apply at all. A third party to a loan transaction who is actually in possession would be left with no remedy if the jurisdiction of the civil Court is held to be barred and no separate remedy is provided to him under the SARFAESI Act, as Section 17 thereof cannot be invoked by him. We are therefore of the considered opinion that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act would have no application to a fact situation as obtaining in the present case and it would be open to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for adjudication of the dispute. As the petitioner was protected by the interim order granted by this Court and the sale held by the 1st respondent company has not been confirmed pursuan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
