SOBHA BAI Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking Mandamus to declare the impugned e -Auction Sale Notice dated 12.11.2015 fixing the date of auction on 16.12.2015 by the respondent -Bank in respect of the petitioner 's property bearing House No. 5 -5 -670/10, 7, 14 of Municipal No. 5 -5 -667, 668 and 669 of Malakunta Road, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad, as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and, consequently, sought a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, to pass orders in S.A. No. 488 of 2015 on merits.

(2.) PETITIONER is the guarantor for the loan availed by respondent No.3 -borrower from the respondent -Bank. As respondent No. 3 -borrower has defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent -Bank has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the SARFAESI Act ') and issued e -Auction Sale Notice dated 12.11.2015 fixing the date of auction on 16.12.2015 in respect of the petitioner 's property bearing House No. 5 -5 -670/10, 7, 14 of Municipal No.5 -5 -667, 668 and 669 of Malakunta Road, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad, in exercise of powers conferred under Rules 8(6) and (9) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for brevity ''the Rules ''). As per the said Sale Notice, the 3rd respondent -borrower is due an amount of Rs. 21,59,351/ - as on 26.02.2008 along with further interest with effect from 27.02.2008.

(3.) SRI D. Raghavulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned e -Auction Sale Notice is issued in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Rules. The learned counsel would further contend that an application for amendment of the prayer in S.A. No. 488 of 2015 is also pending consideration before the Tribunal.