Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, T.Amarnath Goud, JJ.
Shaik Janimiya - Petitioner
Vs.
State Bank of India, SAM Branch II, Rep by its Authorized Officer, Kachiguda, Hyderabad - Respondent
W.P.No.27987 of 2019
Decided On : 27-04-2020
Registration Act, 1908 – Sec.22-A - Income Tax Act,1961 - Sec.194(1)(A) – Auction Sale – Petitioner highest bidder – Issuance of Sale Certificate – When the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, the latter informed the petitioner that the properties in Sy.No.11 of Khanamet village were in the prohibitory list notified under Sec.22-A of the registration Act, 1908 by the State of Telangana and that he would not register the certificate of sale issued by the respondent in favor of the petitioner – Challenged –Held, Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf – bonafide claims of the petitioner cannot be defeated by the respondent by raising hyper technical pleas – Writ petition can be entertained and relief can be granted to the petitioner notwithstanding the decisions cited by the respondent, since there are no disputed questions of fact, and the respondent, in our opinion, has raised a technical plea of existence of alternative remedy only to drive the petitioner to a lengthy, dilatory and expensive process i.e., remedy under Sec.17 of the Act – since the petitioner, in his first demand notice dt.22.12.2018 sought from the respondent interest at 12% p.a, he is entitled to the same on Rs.2,16,81,000/- from the dates on which he deposited the sale consideration till 4.7.2018 when Rs.2,16,81,000/- was refunded to him – Petition allowed
Facts of the Case:
Property being Plot No.1 in Sy.No.11/2(p) admeasuring 569 sq.yds situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District belonging to Smt. Hema Jethwani was mortgaged by the borrowers to the Bank. Other properties were also mortgaged to the Bank for securing the- Petitioner paid the entire sale consideration within 15 days from the date of the auction as directed by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf – bonafide claims of the petitioner cannot be defeated by the respondent by raising hyper technical pleas – Writ petition can be entertained and relief can be granted to the petitioner notwithstanding the decisions cited by the respondent, since there are no disputed questions of fact, and the respondent, in our opinion, has raised a technical plea of existence of alternative remedy only to drive the petitioner to a lengthy, dilatory and expensive process i.e., remedy under Sec.17 of the Act – since the petitioner, in his first demand notice dt.22.12.2018 sought from the respondent interest at 12% p.a, he is entitled to the same on Rs.2,16,81,000/- from the dates on which he deposited the sale consideration till 4.7.2018 when Rs.2,16,81,000/- was refunded to him.
Result: Petition allowed
ORDER :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s Crescent Formulations Pvt. Ltd which Company is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical formulations.
2. M/s Meena Jewellers Exclusive Pvt. Ltd. and other Companies of the said group (for short ‘the borrowers’) had borrowed loans from the State Bank of India (for short ‘the Bank’), a Public Sector Nationalized Bank.
3. The Stressed Asset Management Branch-II of the said Bank is the 1st respondent in this Writ Petition.
4. Property being Plot No.1 in Sy.No.11/2(p) admeasuring 569 sq.yds situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District belonging to Smt. Hema Jethwani was mortgaged by the borrowers to the Bank. Other properties were also mortgaged to the Bank for securing the loans.
5. The Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to recover the dent owed to it by the borrowers.
6. The respondent issued an e-auction notice under the said Act proposing to conduct e-auction of several properties on 29.2.2017 including the above referred property which was mentioned as S.No.1 in the list of open lands at pg 2 of the e-auction notice.
7. Petitioner deposited Rs.21,80,000/- as EMD and later became the highest bidder for the above property quoting Rs.2,19,00,000/- .
8. On 30.11.2017, the respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner declaring him as the highest bidder and directed him to deposit balance EMD amount of 25% of Rs.32,75,000/- immediately. Petitioner complied and another letter No.SMB/HYD/GR/1356 dt.30.11.2017 was issued by the respondent directing him to deposit Rs.1,61,81,000/- being the 75% of the sale consideration within 15 days from the date of the auction.
9. Petitioner paid the entire sale consideration within 15 days from the date of the auction as directed by the respondent.
10. On 13.12.2017, the respondent issued sale certificate to petitioner and deducted TDS of Rs.2,19,000/- as per Sec.194(1)(A) of the Income Tax Act,1961 and rules made there under.
11. Petitioner was asked to make arrangements for registration of the sale certificate with the concerned Sub-Registrar.
12. When the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, the latter informed the petitioner that the properties in Sy.No.11 of Khanamet village were in the prohibitory list notified under Sec.22-A of the registration Act, 1908 by the State of Telangana and that he would not register the certificate of sale issued by the respondent in favor of the petitioner.
13. Petitioner contends that he demanded the respondent to refund the sum of Rs.2,19,00,000/- deposited by him with the respondent with interest @12% p.a and also issued a letter dt.22.2.2018 to the respondent for such refund.
14. On 12.3.2018, the respondent wrote to the petitioner that it had made certain enquiries with the Registration Department of the State of Telangana and came to know that some properties locate in Sy.No.11 of Khanamet Village were being registered by the Sub- Registrar and the petitioner should take steps to get the above property registered. The respondent also denied that it had in any way misled the petitioner and contended that petitioner had participated in the auction after verifying all details of the property.
15. Before the said letter reached the petitioner, he sent an email on 14.3.2018 to the respondent reiterating his plea of refund of the amount he paid to it with interest. He also sent another letter dt.27.3.2018 with the same request refuting the stand of the respondent that it did not do anything wrong.
16. The respondent replied to it on 21.4.2018 stating that the properties in Sy.No.11 of Khanamet Village were put in the prohibitory list on 28.2.2018 but the sale certificate had been issued by it to the petitioner on 13.12.2017 before the said date and refused to refund the amount to the petitioner.
17. Further correspondence continued between the parties.
18. Petitioner addressed letters on 25.4.2018,17.5.2018 and ulti
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
