9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the power conferred by Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the SARFAESI Act). A declaration was also sought that the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, the 1st respondent, should not bring to sale the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.595 and 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, belonging to the petitioner and that he should not be dispossessed thereof pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.560 of 2015. By interim order dated 21.03.2016, this Court directed status quo obtaining a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to have been recognized by the revenue authorities and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to him in relation to these lands. The petitioner asserts that Annapurna, who had bought Ac.4.02 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.595 and 596 of Pedda Amberpet Village, alienated more than the extent purchased by her, aggregating to Ac.6.27 guntas, and the registered sale deed bearing Document No.8124 of 2005 was brought into existence, whereunder Annapurna was said to have sold an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas to her own daughter, Uma Devi. The petitioner further asserts that on 26.02.2015, representatives of the 1st respondent company came to his land and put up a boa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent company. Thereupon, the 1st respondent company approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act seeking delivery of possession of the secured asset and the order dated 05.09.2015 was passed. The 1st respondent company further stated that the vacant physical possession of the land was taken by its authorized officer on 07.11.2015 and sale notice dated 11.02.2016 was published in the newspapers on 12.02.2016 fixing the date of the auction as 17.03.2016. The auction was stated to have been conducted on 17.03.2016 and was knocked down in favour of M/s.Green Leaves Developers. A sum of Rs. 80,74,630/- was stated to have been received from the highest bidder, being 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the status of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act . According to the petitioner, he was neither a borrower nor a guarantor in respect of any loan given by the IDBI bank to the 3rd respondent company. He asserts that a document was fabricated in favour of Uma Devi, though her vendor, her own mother, had no land left to sell to her and that this fabricated document was the foundation for the guarantee given by Uma Devi for the said loan. When the very status of the subject secured asset is in doubt and the applicability of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act is open to question, the statutory prohibitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
