M/S. Sri Sai Agro Industries vs State Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 541 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
                                AND
               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

                        WRIT PETITION No. 2721 OF 2020

ORDER :(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy)


This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

     " to issue a Writ, order or direction, one or more particularly in the
     nature    of   a    "Writ   of   Certiorari"   calling   for   the   records   in
     Crl.M.P.No.438 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan
     Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar and declare the order dated
     04.06.2019, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, apart from
     being contrary to the provisions of SARFAESI Act and consequently
     set-aside the same by directing the Respondent to deliver the

possession back to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity."

Heard learned counsel for petitioner who submits that the

impugned order is passed without following the procedure under

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act (for short 'the Act').

On the other hand Sri Jadhav, learned counsel for

respondent Bank submits that petitioner has already filed SA

No.1171 of 2017 against the proceedings under 13(4) of the Act

and the same was dismissed for default. He also submits that

substantial compliance is made under Section 14 of the Act and

that petitioner has effective alternate remedy under Section 17 of

the Act against the impugned order by virtue of Judgments in

Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Others [(2011) 2 SCC 782]

and Sunil Garg v. Bank of Baroda & Others [2018 (3)

M.P.L.J.615]. He further submits that without mentioning the fact

that SA is dismissed, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner and that on the said ground the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has already

filed restoration petition and the same is pending; and that if copy

of the impugned order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, under Section 14 of the Act is issued to

the petitioner, he will avail alternate remedy by raising all the

grounds.

Learned Counsel for petitioner already filed warrant copy

issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is always

open to the petitioner to file application for Certified Copy of the

impugned order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, under Section 14 of the Act and on such

application, the said Court to issue copy of the said order as per

procedure, enabling the petitioner to challenge the same.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to

the petitioner to avail alternate remedy against the impugned

order. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition

stand dismissed.

__________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

_________________________ Dr.SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 24.02.2021 tk HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

WRIT PETITION No.2721 OF 2020

Date: 24.02.2021

tk