AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, A.C.J.
This writ petition is filed questioning certificate of recovery issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in RP No. 232 of 2005 in OA No. 1100 of 1999 for sale of the property of the petitioner. This Court, on 20.11.2009, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim stay subject to condition of petitioner depositing Rs. 20,00,000/- within four weeks from the date of the said order.
After hearing the learned Counsel on either side, we find that the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is neither justified on facts, nor in law. The respondent - bank is entitled to recover the debt in pursuance of the decree and is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties which include the petitioner''s properties and the discretion of the creditor bank to proceed against the properties mortgaged cannot be interfered with. Further, the rights of the petitioner are sufficiently protected under the remedies provided under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court is not justified in view of the ratio of decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. O.C. Krishnan and Others, . The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. No costs.