BONTHU ARUNA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the 1st respondent in proceeding against the property admeasuring an extent of 400 sq.yds in Sy.No.181, Plot No.47A along with house bearing municipal No.22-311/14, situated at Addagutta Cooperative Housing Society, Kukatpally Village and Municpality, R.R.District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property') for recovery of the alleged dues of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 as untenable and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the E-auction notices dated 30.06.2019 issued in New Indian Express and Namaste Telangana Newspapers in respect of the subject property.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that herself and the 8th respondent are the joint purchasers of the subject property under registered sale deed dated 13.05.1994 vide document No.176/94 from Sri R.K.Gupta for valid consideration. After purchase of the same, both the petitioner as well as the 8th respondent constructed a building and gave the same on lease for running a school to the 7th respondent. While so, the petitioner as well as 8th respondent were served with Demand Notice on 10.09.2009 and possession notice dated 05.01.2010 and 12.04.2010 under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of 2002') on the ground that the 1st respondent is the secured creditor, the 2nd respondent is the principal borrower and the respondents 3 to 5 are stated to be the guarantors for the loan availed by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, respondent Nos. 6 to 8 filed S.A.No.129 of 2010 under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, which was dismissed by order dated 08.12.2018. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata vide Diary No.10 of 2019, which is pending.

(3.) It is further case of the petitioner that neither herself nor the 8th respondent availed any loan facility from the 1st respondent and that they are only third parties, unconnected with the loan availed by the 2nd respondent from the State Bank of Hyderabad, ICRISAT Branch, Patancheru, Medak District-1st respondent. The subject property was sold to the petitioner and 8th respondent much prior to the sanction of the loan by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, as such, the 1st respondent has no title over the subject property.