Court dismissed the writ petition seeking stay of Debts Recovery Tribunal proceedings regarding physical possession. It held that Tribunal observations in a stay application are not binding on the main case and the petitioner must pursue remedies there.
Writ petition and pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.
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 SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P.KESHAVA RAO
W.P.No.13615 OF 2019
ORDER:
(Per Sanjay Kumar, J)
1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.541 of 2019 in S.A.No.55 of 2019. The said I.A. was filed by the petitioner herein seeking stay of further proceedings, including taking of physical possession of the schedule property, pursuant to the prior to Sale Notice dated 28.12.2018, which seems to have been issued under Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
2 By the docket order dated 26.02.2019, the Tribunal opined that no grounds were made out to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India, the respondent herein, and directed that such proceedings would be subject to the result of the S.A.
3 Sri M.Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly concede that no sale materialized thereafter though liberty was given by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to pursue the remedy invoked before the Tribunal by way of the pending securitisation application.
4 We, however, find merit in the submission of Sri Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations made by the Tribunal may interdict further adjudication by the Tribunal on certain issues which have been commented upon. As the said observations were made only in the context of the subject I.A, they shall not be construed as binding on the Tribunal while dealing with the main securitisation application or any other interlocutory applications filed therein.
order as to costs.
----------------------SANJAY KUMAR, J.
-------------------------
P. KESHAVA RAO, J.
Friday 5th July, 2019. Kvsn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the observations made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in an interlocutory stay application are binding on the Tribunal while dealing with the main securitisation application.
Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to a stay of the Tribunal's order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State Bank of India
Sanjay Kumar
P. Keshava Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
