Syed Ershad Ahmed vs Bank Of Baroda,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3193 AP

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

                                 AND

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
                WRIT PETITION No. 18195 of 2021

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)

        Petitioners claim to be the owners of the secured asset.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment

and decree passed by the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, in

O.S.No.652 of 2014, O.S.No.669 of 2014 and O.S.No.669 of 2014.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the unofficial

respondents Nos. 4 to 7 did not have any title in the property, and

therefore, could not have mortgage the property as collateral

security and secured asset in favour of respondent No.1. Hence,

the action of the respondent bank with regard to the secured asset

is illegal and without opportunity as per law.

3. We have considered the materials on record.

4. Petitioners claim to be the owner of the secured asset and

therefore, a person aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent

bank under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002, can approach the

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In view of law declared in

Jagadish Singh Vs. Heeralal and Others1 and Sree Anandakumar

Mills Limited Vs. Indian Oversees Bank2, we are of the opinion that

not only the borrower or guarantor or any other person aggrieved

by the steps taken by the respondent bank; they approach the

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal for necessary relief.

2014 (1) SCC 479

(2019) 14 SCC 788

5. Hence, we dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the

petitioner to approach the Tribunal within fortnight from today.

There shall be an order of status quo in respect of the secured

asset for fortnight to enable the petitioner to approach the

Tribunal. However, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall be

at liberty to pass any interim order or final order in the matter

independently depending upon the observations made in the order

or in the interim arrangement as directed by the Debts Recovery

Appellate Tribunal.

6. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

7. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

writ petition shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 26.08.2021

Psr/Mjl

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

W.P. No.18195 of 2021

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)

26.08.2021

Psr/ Mjl