[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Unknown vs 28.08.2025 Srk on 28 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Writ Petition No.22779 of 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
1. 28.08.2025 SRK, J
Notice before admission.
Learned Government Pleader for
Cooperation representing respondent No.1 takes
notice and seeks time for getting instructions.
Issue notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is
permitted to take out personal notice on
respondent Nos.2 to 4 by registered post with
acknowledgment due and file proof of service
before the Registry within a period of three (3)
weeks.
Heard.
This Writ Petition has been filed questioning
the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in issuing
Sale Notification published in Eenadu Srikakulam
Edition, dated 22.08.2025 proposing to conduct
auction of the petition schedule property bearing
No.7/6/72, Plot No.C25, Yenugula Mahal Street,
2
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
New Colony, Srikakulam on 29.08.2025, as illegal
and arbitrary.
Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner
was provided with an Overdraft facility from
respondent No.4 to a tune of Rs.33,89,025/- and
the said transaction details were recorded in LD
Account No.453/2002.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the petitioner repaid the entire loan
amount along with simple interest amounting to
Rs.19,58,930/- calculated at the agreed rate of
12% per annum and thereafter, cleared the
liability. This Court vide Order, dated 04.02.2013
in Writ Petition No.27612 of 2012 directed the
respondent No.4-Bank to reconsider the
representation made by the Writ Petitioner in
accordance with its bye-laws.
On 17.07.2013, respondent No.4 vide Letter
in LRC No.906/2012 had rejected the
representation stating that the Interest Act, 1978
3
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
and Judgments of this Court are not applicable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the respondent No.4-Bank is a Cooperative
Bank and the same would come within the
purview of the Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and that the Recovery of Debts and
Bankruptacy would come within the purview of the
SARFAESI Act. It is his further contention that in
view of the same, the respondent No.4 has to
follow the procedure as contemplated under the
SARFAESI Act, but in the present case on hand,
without following the said procedure, respondent
No.4 has notified that the aforesaid property would
be auctioned on 29.08.2025 at 4.00 a.m.
This Court in Writ Petition Nos.20626 of
2019 and 3797 of 2020 passed the Order relying
upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The relevant paragraph No.22 reads thus:
“A learned Single Judge of the Telangana High
Court confirmed the award passed by the
Arbitrator and the sale orders in an Execution
Petition by the Dy. Registrar/Divisional
4SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
Cooperative Officer, Charminar Division, in favour
of the highest bidders. The findings of the learned
Single Judge were subsequently challenged in a
batch of writ appeals (No.1680, 1681, 1682, 1695,
1696, 1701, 1711, 1712 and 1714 of 2017). The
order of the learned Single Judge was set aside,
with the court holding that the action initiated
under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies
Act, 1964, was a nullity. The Bank was found to
have a remedy available through filing an
application under the Recovery of debts and
Bankruptcy Act, 1993, relying on the Judgmnts of
the Apex Corut in the Ganpat Panduranga
Cahugule’s case (2 supra) and the M.Baburao’s
case (1 supra)”.
Having regard to the above, the matter
requires examination.
Accordingly, there shall be interim Stay of
all further proceedings pursuant to Sale
Notification, dated 22.08.2025 including the
auction scheduled to be held on 29.08.2025 for
the period of eight (08) weeks.
List the matter after four (04) weeks.
______
SRK, J
Note:
Issue CC today.
B/o.
DNB
5
[ad_2]
Source link