Writ petitions must be dismissed if statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act are available and unutilized; fraud allegations require detailed examination beyond writ jurisdiction.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

The case of petitioners is that, the 2nd petitioner is the sole proprietrix of the 1^st Petitioner and she claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of residential property bearing Flat No.904, admeasuring about 2489 square feet together with an undivided share of land admeasuring about 38.79 square yards out of a total extent of Acs.13.56 in Survey No.201 of Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is asserted, said property was purchased for valid sale consideration out of the personal funds of the 2^nd Petitioner, including her stridhana, gifts received from her family members and financial assistance extended by her husband from time to time, and that the said property was never intended to be used as security for any business or commercial borrowing.

1.1. It is the specific case of Petitioners that the 2^nd Petitioner is a homemaker with limited formal education, having studied only up to 10th standard, and has never engaged in any business activity in her lifetime; she had no experience, expertise or intention to run any business concern and that the proprietary concern in her name was floated without her informed consent or understanding of its implications. It is stated, Respondent No.4, who is the son-in-law of the 2^nd Petitioner, exploited the familial relationship and trust reposed in him to misuse the name and identity of the 2^nd Petitioner for his own financial gain and he floated nearly 18 firms and companies from 2012 onwards for the sole purpose of obtaining loans from various banks and financial institutions and siphoning off the funds to M/s. Challa Cables Pvt. Ltd., a company in which he was actively involved. According to Petitioners, the 1st Petitioner concern is one such entity fraudulently created in the name of the 2^nd Petitioner, without her understanding or participation, and was used as a conduit to avail substantial credit facilities.

1.2. It is further alleged that Respondent No.4 forged signatures of the 2^nd Petitioner on vital loan documents and fabricated other supporting documents clandestinely in collusion with the officials of respondent bank and got sanction and disbursement of loans by overlooking mandatory procedures and in blatant violation of banking norms. Petitioners allege that Rs.1,90,06,925/- was diverted to fictitious firms such as MR Distributors and Sri Ram Enterprises, and also to Respondent No.4 himself and one Mr. Dheeraj, stated to be his assistant.

1.3. Petitioners further contend that Flat No. 904 in an extent of about 2489 square feet together with an undivided share of about 38.79 square feet out of Acs.13.56 in Survey No. 201, Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was mortgaged without the consent of the 2^nd Petitioner who came to know of the same only when bank officials, along with Respondent No.4, visited the premises on 21.01.2020 for the purpose of valuation. Petitioners state that they were shocked to learn that the property had been offered as collateral security and that inflated valuations were obtained by allegedly using morphed photographs of interiors that were not in existence, solely to enable sanction of higher loan amounts.

1.4. When fraudulent acts came to light, the husband of the 2^nd Petitioner approached the bank authorities seeking release of the mortgaged property and clarification regarding loan transactions, however, possession notices were issued and possession taken notice was published in newspapers on 23.01.2020. Petitioners assert that during this period, Respondent No.4 absconded and could not be traced, leaving the family to face severe financial and e