Dismissed

Indian Bank, v. J. Krishna S/o J. Shankar Rao

Telangana HC18 Sept 2013WP/27076/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Indian Bank challenged an Appellate Tribunal order granting waiver of predeposit under Section 18 SARFAESI Act via Writ Petition. The Court held the Bank failed to raise Section 18 objections before the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the matter open for appropriate steps before the Appellate Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner left open to take appropriate steps before the Appellate Tribunal as provided under law.

Indian Bank, Vs J. Krishna S/o J. Shankar Rao — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.27076 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 18.09.2013

¶5

Between: Indian Bank .. Petitioner And J.Krishna and 3 others

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.27076 OF 2013

¶9

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶10

Securitisation Application No.54/2011 filed by the 1^st respondent herein under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”) was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, by order dated 08.03.2013 thereby upholding the proceedings initiated by the petitioner Bank. Aggrieved by the said order the 1^st respondent filed an appeal being Appeal No.45/2013/594 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkatta along with two applications seeking waiver of predeposit and stay of operation of the order under appeal. By order dated 08.04.2013 the Appellate Tribunal while granting time to the petitioner Bank to file affidavits opposing the applications, directed to list the said applications for hearing on 16.05.2013. It was further observed by the Appellate Tribunal as under:

¶11

“In view of the pendency of the appeal, it is expected that parties will not do anything in pursuance to the order impugned which may even remotely destabilize the present position.”

¶12

Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner Bank filed this Writ Petition. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act which provides that no

¶13

appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal 50% of the amount of debts due from him as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the Tribunal whichever is less.

¶14

Having perused the impugned order it appears to us that the appeal has not yet been entertained by the Appellate Tribunal as sought to be contended by the petitioner. Even assuming that the appeal is entertained, nothing prevented the writ petitioner to raise an objection before the Appellate Tribunal itself that the statutory requirements of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act are not satisfied. Without raising such objection before the Tribunal, the petitioner cannot straightaway invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

¶16

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to take the appropriate steps before the Appellate Tribunal as provided under law. No costs.

¶17

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

____________

¶19

G.ROHINI, J

¶20

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶21

Date: 18.09.2013 Ivd

Indian Bank, v. J. Krishna S/o J. Shankar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank, v. J. Krishna S/o J. Shankar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Tobacco Board, Vs The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax

M/s. S.E. Graphites Private Limited, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Madhava Rao, Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

M/s. Scv Cable Net, Vs The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

N.v.R.Rajendra Prasad, S/o.Srirangam, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure

M/s. Nellore Rubber Factory, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation