Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) The frantic effort of a daughter to prevent her father's mortgaged property being auctioned has led to presentation of this writ petition dated October 13, 2015 before this Court. It is noted that this litigation has been preceded by several previous rounds of litigation before various fora in Hyderabad not only at her instance but also at the instance of others (which includes her father and brother).
(2.) The petitioner has questioned the authority of the first respondent (hereafter the "Bank") to initiate proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereafter the SARFAESI Act) on the ground that the "Bank" being a cooperative bank, is not entitled to take recourse to the SARFAESI Act for recovery of its secured debt, and that the recovery process, if any, that has been initiated is without jurisdiction.
(3.) The litigation has a long and chequered history which, however, need not be discussed in any great detail here, since each and every proceeding at the instance of the petitioner (except me) and others has been noted with meticulous care in the decision dated April 24, 2015 passed in W.P. 7769 of 2015 (between Mr. Inder Raj Agarwal and Union of India and others) by an Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh (hereafter the High Court at Hyderabad). This Bench proposes to refer to such decision at a later part of this judgment.;