Poluri Balaram Renuka vs Korutla Veera Swamy
2024 Latest Caselaw 8112 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Poluri Balaram Renuka vs Korutla Veera Swamy on 6 September, 2024

APHC010306702024
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-14
                                                           [3483]
                                AT AMARAVATI

                          WRIT PETITION NO: 18574 of 2024

Poluri Balaram Renuka                                                    ...Petitioner

       Vs.

Korutla Veera Swamy and others                                       ...Respondents

                                        **********

Mr. Rajesh Kumar B, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

DATE : 6th September, 2024

PC:

The petitioner is aggrieved of the proceedings initiated by the

respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'].

2. It is stated that the asset which was secured by way of mortgage

by private respondent No.1 with the respondent Bank is the subject matter of

a civil suit filed by the petitioner and is pending before the civil Court.

It is stated that during the pendency of the civil suit, the respondent

Bank could not have proceeded to invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI

Act.

It is, however, not denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that there

was a sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of private respondent

HCJ & RC,J WP_18574_2024

No.1 and upon shifting of the title in favour of respondent No.1, the property

was mortgaged with the respondent Bank for purposes of obtaining the loan.

3. The mere pendency of a civil suit instituted by the petitioner, in

our opinion, may not create any indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner to

prevent the respondent Bank from invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI

Act.

4. However, in our opinion, this is not a case where we can be

asked to invoke extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, keeping in view the ratio of the judgments of the Apex

Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2021) 6

SCC 771] and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [2024 SCC

Online SC 528].

5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J

Vjl