A writ petition challenging a notice from the Debts Recovery Tribunal to auction a guarantor's property was dismissed. The Court held the petitioner must approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal after the underlying Order Appeal is dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION NO.27050 OF 2012
DATED:31.8.2012
Between: Kondepudi Venkata Subba Rao … Petitioner And
The Debts Recovery Tribunal 31-31-21, Sai Baba Street Daba Gardens Visakhapatnam and others … Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION NO.27050 OF 2012
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
This writ petition is filed questioning the notice dt.18.6.2012 issued by respondent No.1 – Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in R.P. No.146 of 2008 in O.A. No.105 of 2008. By the said notice, the petitioner herein, who was respondent No.3 in R.P. No.146 of 2008 before the Tribunal, was informed to appear before the Tribunal personally or through Advocate, on 3.7.2012, for fixing up of reserve price and auction schedule.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner stood as guarantor to respondent No.3 for sanction of loan of Rs.10,00,000/- by respondent No.2 bank to respondent No.3. As there was default in repayment of loan, respondent No.2 bank filed O.A. No.105 of 2008 before respondent No.1 – DRT. The O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal on 7.7.2008. In R.P. No.146 of 2008 filed by the bank in the said O.A., the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that his property admeasuring Ac.2.40 cents in Sy.No.28/1 of Tamarada Village, Kiralampudi mandal, East Godavari District, is proposed to be auctioned on 31.8.2012.
The case of the petitioner is that the DRT passed the order in I.A. without giving opportunity to him and the impugned notice is illegal and arbitrary.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The O.A. filed by the bank was allowed by respondent No.1 – DRT in the year 2008. Now, the petitioner challenges the notice dt.18.6.2012 issued by respondent No.1 – DRT, in R.P. No.146 of 2008 filed by the bank in the said O.A. In our opinion, the petitioner has to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the matter immediately after dismissal of the O.A. At this stage, this Court cannot pass any order in favour of the writ petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to take such recourse as may be available under law to him, before an appropriate forum.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 31.8.2012 bnr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can intervene in a debt recovery proceeding issued by the DRT at this stage of the proceedings.
Whether the petitioner is directed to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal instead of the High Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kondepudi Venkata Subba Rao
The Debts Recovery Tribunal 31
Others
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
