DHANAVATH RAVINDRA NAIK Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the borrower. For the default in re-payment of the loan amount, the 1st respondent - Bank, initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'), and has taken possession of the subject property of the petitioner, issued E-auction sale notice dated 09.05.2016, and conducted auction on 17.06.2016, and the 2nd respondent herein was the highest bidder. After receipt of the total bid amount from the auction purchaser, the 1st respondent - Bank issued the sale certificate dated 21.07.2016, and registered the same vide document No.5217/2016 dated 21.07.2016.

(2.) Petitioner challenged the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent - Bank in pursuance of E-auction-cum-sale notice dated 09.05.2016 by filing application under Section 17 of the Act in S.A.No.187 of 2016 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal - I Hyderabad. Vide order dated 25.01.2019, the Tribunal allowed the application. Seeking review of the said order, Bank filed Review Application No.2 of 2019, and vide order dated 11.06.2019, the Tribunal, except substituting the sentence "The applicant relied on the following citations" with that of "the Respondent - Bank relied on the following citations", held that the order dated 25.01.2019 holds good in all other aspects.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he made representation to the 1st respondent - Bank on 18.09.2019 requesting to handover the physical possession of the subject property and also to inform him the amount that is due for the purpose of payment, but the Bank has neither given him any reply informing him the amount that is due, and also did not handover the possession. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition.