Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court rejected a plea of State Bank of India (SBI) that it has a priority to recover sums from a debtor and Sebi could not have issued prohibitory orders on the property of a defaulter. The bench of Justice P. Naveen Rao and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka dismissed two writ petitions filed by the bank. SBI’s counsel contended that two private companies, Midfield Industries and SVCL Pvt limited, obtained huge loans and mortgaged their immovable properties way back in 2004 and 2006. When the loans became NPA they took recourse to the procedure under Sarfaesi Act by auctioning properties. When they approached the sub-registrar to register the property in the name of the successful bidders it was learnt that Sebi has passed prohibitory orders on the same and refused to register the property. It was contended by senior counsel E. Madan Mohan Rao, appearing for SBI, that their first priority of charge was their claim pertained to 2004 and 2006 years respectively, whereas the prohibitory orders were passed 15 years later in 2020. He pointed out that even Sarfaesi Act and RDBI Act had non-obstante clauses and hence the former Act would prevail over Sebi Act. However, K. Rathanga Pani Reddy and B. Shiva Ram Sharma, appearing for Sebi, refuted the contention stating that the non-obstante clause contained in Sarfaesi Act and RDBI Act would not apply to the present facts as orders passed by Sebi is not a “tax, cess, revenue or other rates payable to government”, which is a precondition for non-obstante clause to apply. Hence, the counsels pointed out that the SBI cannot take shelter under the said provisions and also contended that though the prohibitory orders were passed recently, the violations committed by the private entities and issuance of show cause notice was much earlier and Sebi can pass an en masse order on any property of a defaulter to realise penalties under the Act since public wealth is wiped off due to irregularities and to ensure and protect the safety and confidence of lakhs of investors such measures were taken.
Firm’s liability: EPF tribunal urged to consider plea afresh
The Telangana High Court directed the Employees Provident Fund appellate tribunal to consider afresh the liability of Computer Science Corporation India P. Ltd to the tune of nearly ₹23 lakh. The assistant PF commissioner made the demand. When the order was set aside by tribunal, the assistant commissioner challenged the order contending that the demand was in accordance with the law. He stated that the tribunal erred in considering the plea that the firm was engaged in computer and computer-related services. It is also urged that the order was cryptic and not supported by reason. In his order, Justice K. Lakshman pointed out that the Computer Science Corporation India had raised the issue. He pointed out the power of the EPF Tribunal to confirm, modify or annul the order of the original authority. The power to consider additional evidence by the tribunal was also upheld by the judge. Nonetheless, the aspects raised, the judge said averments were not considered and were a cryptic order. The judge accordingly remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the tribunal.
HC stays appointment of kazi
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court stayed the appointment of Mohammed Abdul Mahmood Qureshi as the kazi of Takuthpura in the city. The court wondered how the district collector was ignoring directions issued by the concerned secretary and wondered if a “hide and seek” game was being played out. The petitioner Ibrahim Shareef challenged the appointment on the ground that the process was bad in law, as it was initiated by the government without assessment of need as stipulated under the Kazis Act. It is also alleged that the impugned appointment was without consulting prominent local Muslims. Senior advocate A.M. Qureshi, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the person appointed is alleged to be part of conspiring marriages of minor girls to sheikhs outside the country. The petitioner pointed out that the finding that the appointee has been purged of charges of “contract marriages” was contrary to the record. The bench, comprising Justice T. Vinod Kumar and Justice Pulla Karthik, expressed concern for not conducting any inquiry since 2014 despite directions to the district collector from the principal chief secretary. The bench also observed that prima facie it appears that authorities are hand in glove with the present kazi as for almost eight years no action was initiated by the authorities to the complaints. The bench accordingly suspended the order and granted an interim stay on appointment. The bench will again hear the matter on June 21.
Spa owner denied anticipatory bail
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday refused to grant anticipatory bail to the owner of a spa in the city. The petition was filed by Ramavath Swathi, owner of Stylish Spa who was alleged to have been running prostitution in the name of spa business. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is undertaking normal business activities and has been running the spa with all due permissions from appropriate authorities. He also said that CCTV footage can also be examined, which will also support his case. The public prosecutor argued that it was a case of immoral trafficking of women. Most of the victims are married women and investigation is still underway. The judge, accepting the contentions of the public prosecutor, denied granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Officials asked to stay away from land pooling issue
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday extended the protection of non-interference by government officials in a case of land pooling. The petition was filed by Ganela Pandurangam and others, who are residents of Bhudera village, complaining that the revenue officials were trying to dispossess them from their assigned lands without authority. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the revenue authorities are compelling them to receive plot allotment certificates in exchange of their assigned lands in Survey No. 30 of Budhera village. They are also claiming to having handed over possession of the subject lands to HMDA despite the petitioners expressing their non-consent in writing to the proposed land pooling scheme. The government pleader contended that the petitioners have voluntarily given away their land and they were now going back. After hearing from both the parties, the judge accepted the extended the interim protection earlier granted to the petitioners and directed the revenue authorities not to take possession of the petitioner’s land till the matter in the court is decided.
Status quo on land issue in Chowtabatla village
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed status quo to be maintained in Chowtabatla village, Kollapur mandal, Nagarkurnool district. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by A. Sekhar and other residents of the said village. The petitioner alleged that government officials and villagers, without any authority, were interfering with the peaceful possession of the land of the petitioner. The government pleader submitted that earlier, out of that total 8 acres and 2o guntas of land in Survey No. 26 of Chowtabatla village, six acres guntas was acquired by the government and compensation was paid to the landowners. The remaining land has not been acquired by the official respondents nor was any attempt made by the respondents to dispossess the petitioners as alleged. The government pleader further submitted that as per oral instructions from officials, the villagers are trying to construct a graveyard in Survey No. 26. The judge, after hearing the submissions, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the day. The judge will again hear the matter on July 25.
