IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25856 of 2007 Between: M/s. Kura Homes Pvt. Ltd., Rep. bys its Executive Director, Sri K. Veerendher Reddy S/o.K. Satyanarayana Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Bank of India, R.P. Road, Secunderabad Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Sri C. Laxmi Prasad S/o. Venkataramana R/o. Hyderabad. 2 B. Subramanyeswara Rao S/o. B. Mahalakshmi R/o. 9-3-109, Abdul Razak Street, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriat writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with Crl.M.P.No. 2101 of 2006 dt. 21-11-07 on the ﬁle of the Chief Metropolitian Magistrate, Hyderabad and quash or set aside the same as also consequential proceedings i.e, Possession Notice issued by the Authorised Oﬃcer of the 1st respondent Bank on 23- 11-2007 as being in contravention of the provisions of the Securitisation Act and pass such other or further order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.Y.VASUDEVA RAO The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by M/s Kura Homes Private Limited assailing the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2101 of 2006 dated 21.11.2007 on the ﬁle of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent-B.Subramanyeswara Rao raised loan from 1st respondent-Central Bank of India, Secunderabad. He oﬀered a ﬂat owned by him as security for the loan. Since the loan granted to the 2nd respondent became non-performing asset the 1st respondent-bank invoked the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. An order under Section 13(4) came to be passed and thereafter an application has been moved before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad seeking assistance for taking possession of the mortgaged property. The said application came to be allowed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 21.11.2007. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 6-12-2007. While ordering notice an order of status quo also came to be granted. 1st respondent entered appearance and ﬁled W.V.M.P.No.113 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 6.12.2007. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for ﬁnal disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Both the counsel submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.22997 of 2007 DATED 17.1.2008 (M/s Kura Homes Private Limited vs. Central Bank of India and another). The contention of the petitioner is that 2nd respondent is indebted to him under a development agreement and therefore a charge is created on the flat owned by 2nd respondent. Indisputably 1st respondent granted loan to 2nd respondent on oﬀering the ﬂat owned by him as a security. The 1 st respondent invoked the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Security Interest Act, 2002) and passed orders under Section 13(4) Security Interest Act, 2002. If the petitioner is aggrieved by it he has to work out the statutory remedy available under section 17 of Security Interest Act, 2002. In case the petitioner intends to recover the money due under development agreement from 2nd respondent he is at liberty to ﬁle a suit for recovery of the same. So long as the order passed under Section 13(4) of Security Interest Act, 2002 is in operation, the petitioner cannot question the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. With the above observations, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 5th September, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25856 OF 2008 4T H SEPTEMBER, 2008