Disposed

K. Prasad v. Indian Bank

Telangana HC23 Dec 2021WP/28361/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash a Debt Recovery Tribunal order. The Court held that since the parties had invoked the statutory appeal remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, it was appropriate for them to participate in the appellate proceedings rather than file a separate writ to avoid conflicting orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to file a separate appeal before the DRAT or support the existing appeal filed by the bank. Writ and interim applications disposed of without costs.

K. Prasad Vs Indian Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P,MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28361 OF 20 21

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . K. Prasad, S/o. K. Vishweshwar Rao, 4-1-55, 1st floor, old Bhoiguda, pandu Rana Swamy Temple Lane, Near. Mutyalamma Temple, Secundera 6ad-500003.

¶9

K. Vinay Kumar, S/o. K. Vishweshwar Rao, 4- 1-55, 1 st floor, old Bhoiguda, Pandu Rana Swamy Temple Lane, Near. Mutyalamma Temple, Secunderibad500003.

¶10

...PETTTtONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 INDIAN BANK, rep, by lts chief manager/ Authorized officer, 5-123, main road, Sri Sai Sreenivasam Residencey, [r,4oosapet, Hyderabad-500003.

¶13

2 It4/s. Pragna lndustries, Rep by its proprietor, C.V. Nagaraju, Plot No.C-10, cooperative lndustrial Estate, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 [,/r. C.V. Nagaraju, S/o, Mr. C. Hanumantha Rao, Plot no.29, Sindicate Bank colony, West Ir/aredpally, Secunderabad-500026.

¶15

4 Itrlrs. C. Prabhavathi, Wo. C. Hanumantha Rao, Plot no.29, Sindicate Bank colony, West IVaredpally, Secunderabad-500026

¶16

C. Rama Raju, S/o, Mr. C. Hanumantha Rao, Plot no.29, Sindicate Bank colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad-500026.

¶17

6 Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll, Rep by its Registrar, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction or more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by Hon'ble DRT-Il, Hyderabad is manifestly arbitrary , illegal , unlawful, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, irrational, perverse, non application of mind being altravires and violative of provisions of SARFAESI Act, and security interest enforcement rules 2002 and in violation of Articles 14,21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 (DRT-ll, Hyderabad) to set aside the order passed in RA.No.2/2021 passed on 22.09.2021 by DRT-ll, Hyderabad and direct the Respondent No.1 bank to take the physical possession of the secured Asset from the Respondent No.2 to 4 and to pass on the physical possession of the secured asset to the writ petitioners.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all the further proceedings in^pursuant of the order of the Honble DRT-Il, Hyderabad in RA.No.2/2021 and direct the Respondent No.2 to 4 not to create any encumbrance including sale of the secured property to the 3rd^parties and not to deliver the physical possession of the secured property to third parties till the disposal of this Writ Petition.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^permit the petitioner to amend the prayer of the writ petition in the above side writ petition in the circumstance of the^justice and facts of the case.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI SRINIVAS GANGISHETTI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: V. DYUMANI

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: V. V. RAMANA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: --

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

Honourable Sri Justice^{Ujjal Bhuyan}

¶30

and

¶31

Honourable Smt Justice^{P. Madhavi Devi}

¶32

W.P.No.28361^{of 2021}

¶33

Q1fu97; !t:r^{l lottbl': .'n} .lt'ticc^{I 'jitt/Bh4an)}

¶34

I Icard N{r.^{(iangishctrySrinivas, Iearnedcounsel For thc} petitioncrs; lvls.^{V.Dvumani,learne d coul1se1 for respondent} No.1 /Indian llank;^{and Mr. V .V} 'Ramana,^{learnedcounse I for} rcspondcnts \o.2 trt^5.

¶35

lirom thc rrl:rtcrials otl^{rccord arld aftcr ircaring learncd} counsel ftrr thc^{parti.ts, s'c find tl-rat rcsllondcut No'2 as il-rc} borro$.cr l-rad av:ri1cd^{loafl lrom rcspondcntNo.1 / lndianllar-rli.} For lailurc to^{r:cPz1rthc loat-ram()unt. responclcntNo'1 initjirtcd} procccdines agrirtst^{rcspontlent \c1.2 under the Sccuriris'tti<'n} and llccons trltco orl^{of liinanciirl ,\ssets and llnft;rccmcntof} Sccr-rrilv lntcrcst \cr.^{2{)02 (bncflr' 'the SAIIIT'\ESL\ct'} hercinafter). in this^{conncction, salc noticedated02'i 1'2014r'r'as} issur:cl ior c-auctiot-t of the^{sccurc:d2lssct ()n 05 12 201'l ln thc} c-ar:ctir rr-r hcld^{or-r 05.12.2()14,} Petiuollcrs^{had participatcclzrrd} u'crc dcclrrccl rs thc^{I'riqhost bidclcrs.}

¶36

ln tl'rc r'ncans'hi1c,^{rcspcll-rdcrltNo 2alot-lgs'ith} rcspondct-tts \o.3.^{-l ar-rd 5. hcir-rq thc parrncrs oi rcspondctlt} No.2/trrm, filcd Sccuritization^{r\pplication under Section 17 of} tl.re Si\RIi,\lr,SI -Act^{before the L)ebtsllccoverr' 'l'riburral-lI,}

¶37

¶38

Hyderabad (for short 'the I'ribunal), vhich^{was relisteredas} S.A.No.81 o{ 2078 (old S.A.No.568 of^{2014). Bv the order dated} 10.01.2020, the'I'ribunal a.llow-ed S.A.No.81 of^{2018 arld quashed} the e-action sale held or 05.12.2014 and^{the consequefltial sale} certificzrtc dated 11.12,2014, issued^{in far-our} of^{thc p.truorlcrs.} 4, lt furthcr appears that respondent No.1/lndian^llank sought revierv of thc afr;resaid ordcr^date d^{10.01 .2020} bv^triing rcvicrv pctition bcFore thc^'l'ribunal, rvhich u,as rcSstered^as Revierv Petition N<;.2 of 2020. ln tl-rc llctieu.' I)ctruon, the nvo auction purchasers 2.e., tlre prcscnt w-rit pctitione'rs wcrc arraved as respondents No.5 and 6.

¶39

Be it stated that the prescnt pctiuoncrs rvere impleaded as respondents in S.A.No.8'l of 201U as rveli bl subscqucnt order of the Tribunal. Revierv Petition No.2 of 2{-}2t) s,as dismissed bv the^'l'ribunal bv ordcr <lared 22.09.2021. -,\g4ricr.cd bv dismissal of the rcr'-ierv pe tition, respondent No.1/ tndian lJank has preferred appeal under Section 18 of thc SARITAIiSI Act, beftrrc the Debts lLecol.cr1, ;\ppelIate^'Iribunal at l(olkata (frrr short 'the I)1{A'I'), rvhich has bcen rcgistered as IL.A.No.4l <tf 2021,. (). On 1,2.11 .2021, rve had passed the f,cillos,ing order:

¶40

"On tcciucst of .{rs, \i. I)rumani, leamed Standurg Counsel for the lndian llatk, Iist or 21.11.2021 to cnable her to obtain instructicxrs regatding the plcscnt status of appcal filed by thc lndran Bank beforc the Debts llec(x.ery

¶41

¶42

.\llprlJrtr'^{'llilrtttlrrl rtIioliirrn ;lgillll:t tht ortlt't oithc} l)tbts I{r.corclt^{I nbunal rel(ctllrl-: thc tcvrcupt'trtrrrntilt'd} br- thc Inthrtt^lJrlrrk."

¶43

1 . '['odar,, lcalncd c()unsel for respondent No'1/ lndian Bank submits that^{R.r.No.4lof 2021 is pending for hearing before} the I)RA'I'.^{Bccausethere is no rei{ular Chairperson at Koil{ata'} the l.rearing^{has been delayed.On a query by the Court' shc} submits that Prcscnt^{petitionersare resPondents in tl-rc said} appcal.

¶44

Lcarncd ct,unscl^{fot rcspondcnt No'2 submits that aftcr} thc order of^{tl.rc'I'ribunaldatcd 10'01'2020 in S'A'No'81of 201fJ'} respondcnt No'2^{has ciearedthe entire outstandirlll ducstcr} rcspondcnt \o.1^.

¶45

Without cntcnne^{into this aspccto[ thc mattcr' t c arc of} the vierv that^{wherltheag5;tieve<lrcspondent No'1/lndianIlank} has a.r,ailed^{its statutory femedv of appeal under Section18 o[ the} SARFAESI^{Act, rvherein prcscnt} Petitioners^{arc parties, it rvould} be appropriate^{i[ the petitionersalso participate in tlle appellate} proceedings^{in5t6radof Frl-ing separate writ petitions beforethis} Court. We arc o[^{the furthct vie\' that clltertainingthis Writ} Petition in the^{facc of the aforesaid dcvek>prncrlt, mayresult in} conflicting^{otdcrs, rvhicl-r should be avoided'}

¶46

10.^{'Il-rat bcing tl-rc position,rvc gr?tfl t liberty to thc petitroncrs} either to filc^{scparateappcal bcForethe DR"\T or supPort}

¶47

¶48

Il. r.No.47 of 2021, , alreadv trlcd b1, thc respondcnt No.1 / Indiar.r

¶49

llank.

¶50

With the abovc obsen'ation, Writ Petition is disposcd o[.

¶51

ltclatcd intcrim applicntion is also dispr.rsed o[.

¶52

No costs.

SD/.K. ONESIM

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,'.!. The chief manager/ Authorized officer, INDIAN BANK, 5-123, main road, sri Sai Sieenivasim R6sidencey,^{tvloosapet, Hyderabad-500Q03'}

¶59

z. ine Jioiiiietor, C.V.^{Nag'aiaiu, M/i. Prafna lndustries, Plot No C-1 0' co-}

¶60

ooerltir'e lndustrial Est;te, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad'

¶61

s. rvirlC.V. Nusiiijr,^{S/", ui. C. Hanimantlq} Eqg'^{Plot no 2e, SindicateBank} colony, Wes'i Mdredpally'^{Secunderabad-500026'}

¶62

4 l\il-r;. 6. Prabhavathi, Wid.C.^{ttrnrnranthaRao, Plot no 29, SindicateBank} colony, West Maredpally,^{Secunderabad-5000-26}

¶63

C. R;'lir; R;ir, Slo, Vr-t.^{Hanumantha-Rao, Plot no 29, Sindicate Bank colonv'}

¶64

West Maredbally, Secunderabad-50002€.

¶65

o. oebti necoi.iry^{iriUunat-tt,Rep-by its Registrar, Abids,tlyderabad'} i. o;;-ad t; SRt'sntrutvns^{GANGlSHETTIfdvocate [oPUC]}

¶66

e. One CC to SRI^{V. DYUMANIAdvocate} tOPqCl

¶67

g. One CC to SRI V.V. RAMANA Advocate IOPUCI

¶68

10.Two CD CoPies.

¶69

1 1 . One spare^coPY.

NPJ BS

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^2311212021

e sTAl'€
I
.-
o:l
24 J[!'12[22
+
k*
.1Yr:.^,1

¶74

ORDER

¶75

WP.No.28361^{of 2021}

¶76

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION}

¶77

WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶78

Af^t
4a
AL
t8
l,

K. Prasad v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Prasad v. Indian Bank

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

M/s Plr Projects Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner (STU-1)

M/s. Malik Cars Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner- Stu 2

M/s.K.Balaveeraiah and Sons Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

New Pioneer Industries Vs State of Telangana

M/s.G.S.Traders Vs Deputy Commissioner, And Another

M/s. Progressive Aquatech Enterprises Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ii and 2 others