SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 63689

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M/s Kraft Alloy Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP 29088/2025



HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 29088 OF 2025

O R D E R:

Heard Sri Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Saini Aravind, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri D. Narender Naik, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate and Sri S.M. Moizuddin, party-in-person.

2. Petitioner-M/s Kraft Alloy Pvt. Ltd. filed this Writ Petition seeking two reliefs against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 viz., Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad and the Sub Registrar, District Registrar Officer, Ranga Reddy District. They are a) to quash the Enforcement Directorate (R-2) letter dated

28.09.2022 addressed to the 3rd respondent;

b) to direct the Sub-Registrar, RR District (R-3) to register all deeds of conveyance relating to petitioner's property without reference or restraint caused by the said letter dated

28.09.2022.

3. The brief case of Petitioner is that:

M/s Aashi Realtors and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., were the absolute owners of the land admeasuring Acs.4.07 gts. and Acs.4.00, totally Acs. 8-07 gts, in Survey No. 78, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, RR District, Hyderabad. They availed Rs. 110 crores financial facility from M/s SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. and mortgaged the property in question in their favour. Since M/s Aashi Realtors defaulted in repayment, the Creditor-M/s SREI Equipment Finance Ltd., invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act; loan accounts were declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 16.01.2019l; thereafter, the Authorized Officer under the SARFAESI Act brought the property in question to public auction on 30.12.2019. Petitioner emerged as the successful bidder. After receiving the entire sale consideration, a sale certificate dated 14.01.2020 was issued in favour of petitioner in accordance with the SARFAESI Act, thus, petitioner has become the absolute owner and lawful possessor of the property in question with effect from the said date.

3.1. On issuance of Sale Certificate dated 14.01.2020, petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar concerned seeking registration of Sale Certificate, however, registration was denied on the ground that the Tahsildar stated that lands situated in Survey No. 78 of Hafeezpet are prohibited from registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Hence, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 24348 of 2020, wherein this Court, by order dated 04.02.2021, directed the Sub-Registrar to register the documents submitted by petitioner. Since the said orders were not implemented, petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 262 of 2021.

3.2. It is stated, to circumvent the contempt proceedings, the State authorities preferred SLP No. 2844 of 2021 challenging the order of this Court dated 04.02.2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while admitting the SLP, had not granted any interim stay or interim suspension. Meantime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 2844 of 2021 and other tagged SLPs filed by the State, by order dated 13.03.2023 granted leave and directed that the existing orders of status quo would continue to operate. Petitioner contends that no status quo was ordered in SLP and only a direction not to take coercive steps was ordered. When petitioner approached the 3rd respondent for registration, they were informed that the 2nd respondent forwarded the letter dated 28.09.2022, impugned in this Writ Petition, directing not to create any encumbrance or register any conveyance deed in respect of the land purchased by petitioner in the public auction.

3.3. Petitioner contends that in the impugned letter, the 2nd respondent informed about the pendency of ECIR No. HYZO/34/2020 against one Sukesh Gupta and others. It is further stated that subject property had earlier stood in the name of M/s Aashi Realtors and petitioner had purchased the same in an auction conducted by the creditor-M/s SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. It is evident from the letter that it is valid only for a period of six months. It is contended that as M/s SREI had not recovered its

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top