THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.21183 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri P.Ramchandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner filed proof of service of notice on the respondent Nos.4 to 7. In spite of the same, none appears for the respondent Nos.4 to 7.

3. This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the respondent No.3/Sub-Registrar, Dood-Bowli, to delete the property i.e. Flat No.508, bearing Municipal bearing No.15-8-130/A to C, 6th Floor, known as D.K.Market, with built up area of 1185 Sq.Feets with undivided share of land admeasuring to an extent of 23.7 Sq.Yards from out of 1268 Sq.yards in the building Nos.15-8-130, 15-8-130/A, 15-8-130/B and 15-8- 10/C, situated at Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property”) from the list of prohibited properties and to register the Sale Certificate to be issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the Auction Purchaser under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 has availed a mortgage loan of Rs.45,00,000/- on 22.11.2021 from the petitioner- Bank, by mortgaging the subject property, vide Mortgage deed bearing No.4005/2021 dated 22.11.2021. The respondent No.6 and 7 stood as guarantors for the loan availed by the respondent No.5. Subsequently, the respondent No.5 has paid some installments and later committed default. The petitioner-Bank, being a secured creditor, has initiated proceedings against the respondent Nos.5 to 7 by issuing a demand notice to them dated 09.01.2024 under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act demanding them to pay Rs.48,45,619/-, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Having received notices, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 failed to liquidate the debt, therefore the petitoner Bank constrained to issue notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act by publishing notice in English, Telugu and Hindi leading Newspapers. Thereafter, the petitioner-Bank filed a petition under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act, before the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for taking possession of the subject property and accordingly the said petition was allowed 30.08.2024 and the possession of the subject property was taken over by the petitioner-compnay through an Advocate-Commissioner.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on 25.07.2024 when the petitioner company intended to sell the property to the prospective purchaser it was found that the subject property was listed in prohibited list. Thereafter, the petitioner-Bank addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 to remove the subject property from the prohibited list, but they refused to do so on the ground that in pursuance of the orders dated 03.01.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in ARB No.2692 of 2022, passed by the Arbitrator/Respondent No.4, the subject property is under attachment.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the petitioner Bank is a secured creditor having first charge over the subject property from 2021 and the attachment is effected subsequent to the mortgage in the year, 2023, which will not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property and further such attachments have no impact on the sale that would be conducted under the Act. In spite of receiving letter from the petitioner-Bank the respondent No.3 did not chose to reply nor registered the sale certificate and on the other hand demanding the petitioner-company to get order from this Court. The petitioner-Bank is neither party to the proceedings initiated by Shriram Finance Ltd., and therefore said attachment is not binding on the petitioner.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-Bank submits that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 have created mortgage in respect of the subject property in favour of the petitioner-Ban