PATTAPARLA SESHI KIRAN GOUD v. UNION BANK OF INDIA
WP/9523/2025 · 2025-04-28
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Ravi Cheemalapati
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 14653 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 14653 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010183142025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 9523 of 2025 Bench Sr.No.35 [3483] Pattaparla Seshi Kiran Goud ...Petitioner Vs. Union Bank of India and another ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. G. Vijaya Kumar appeared vice Mr. K. Viswanatham Advocate for Respondents : Mrs. V. Dyumani
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 28th April 2025 P C :
The present Writ Petition has been preferred against the order impugned, dated 13.03.2025, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad.
2. By virtue of the said order, the application filed by the petitioner seeking restraint order on the respondent Bank from proceeding with the auction of the secured assets and the physical possession of the scheduled property was rejected in view of the fact that the conditional interim stay, dated 15.04.2024, passed by the Tribunal had not been complied with by the petitioner.
2 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.9523 of 2025
3.
Learned counsel for the respondent Bank states that pursuant to the passing of the order, dated 13.03.2025, not only was the auction conducted by the Bank, even the physical possession has been taken over on 03.04.2025 and possession delivered to the auction purchaser on 04.04.2025.
4. Further, on a perusal of the order impugned, it can be seen that all issues which were raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal in regard to the legality of the procedure adopted for conducting the auction, valuation of the property as also the legality regarding the procedure in issuing the authorization for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner are issues, which have been kept open by the Tribunal to be considered in the Securitization Application, which is still pending.
5. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present petition and is, accordingly, disposed of. It shall be open to the petitioner to agitate all the issues before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, pending S.A. proceedings. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs
3 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.9523 of 2025
53 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
W.P.No.9523 of 2025
Dt: 28.04.2025
kbs