Disposed

Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited v. Naveen Kondal Nalla and another

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022WP/1444/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging an order by the DRT-I, Hyderabad, after learning that the Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata had resumed regular functioning with a new Chairman. The court directed the Appellate Tribunal to take up the pending appeal within six weeks and continued the interim stay. Miscellaneous applications were closed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the DRT at Kolkata to take up Appeal No.311 of 2020 within six weeks; continued interim stay.

Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

\ ,

¶2

: : I I I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 1444 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, H.No 3-6-310, HDFC House, Hyderguda Road Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500029. Rep. by its Authoris-ed Signatory Mr.V.Venkatesh, S/o. Late.V.Krishna

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Navge! Kondal Nalla, S/o. N. Bhaskara Rama Murthy Aged 50 years, Ryo. 147E, Glacier P1 Candler, AZ 85249, USA.

¶14

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Represented by its Registrar Unnamed Road, B.B.D. Bagh, Kolkata West Bengal 700001.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ol 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, direction or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the operation of the order of the DRT-|, Hyderabad, dated 22.06.2020 in S.A.No.178 ol 2019 as illegal arbitrary apart from being violative of Section 58 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and consequently set aside the same.

¶17

fA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order of the DRT-|, Hyderabad, dated 22.06.2020 in S.A.No.178 of 2019 pending final adjudication of the writ petition.

¶19

i t, I

¶20

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶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 permit the Petitioner to file this Additional Affidavit along with material papers in . the interest of justice.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. Y. SHREYAS REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. RAVINUTALA VENKATA SUBBA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2:

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.1444 of 2022

¶30

ORDER: (Per Hon'bte Sn Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

¶31

Heard Mr. Y.Shreyas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravinutala Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶32

Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFCL) as the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assaiiing the legality and validity of the order dated 22.06.2020 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribuna-l-I, Hyderabad (Tribunal) in S.A.No.178 of 20t9.

¶33

It may be mentioned that 1"t respondent had liled the securitisation application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financia-l Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (briefly referred to hereina-fter as the 'SARFAESI Act') before the Tribunal against the steps taken by the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of dues from the 1"t respondent, which the l"t

¶34

UB,J &SN,J W.P.No.1444 of 2022

¶35

¶36

respondent had availed of from the petitioner by way^{of loan.} By the order dated 22.06.2020, the securitisationLpptcation of the 1"t respondent was allowed ald the sa-le of schedule property conducted by the petitioner was interfered with.

¶37

Under Section 18 ofthe SARFAESI Act, any person who is aggrieved by an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act has a right to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, in this case Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. As a matter of fact, petitioner had filed appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata on 01.09.2020 being Appeal No.311 of 2O2O. However, because of non-availability of the Chairman, no effective orders could be passed in the appeal. It was in such circumstances that the present writ petition came to be frled.

¶38

In the hearing held on 29.03.2022, we had called upon learned counsel for the parties to ascertain and appraise the Court as to whether the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata has resumed its functioning. Today when the matter is called upon, we have been informed across the Bar that Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava has been appointed

¶39

¶40

: - ----"

¶41

3 UB,J &SN,J W.P.No.1444 of 2022

¶42

as the Chairman of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata, whereafter the said Appellate Tribunal has started regula-r functioning.

¶43

In view thereof, we direct that Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata shall take up Appeal No.311 of 2020 within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter consider passing appropriate order in accordance with. Till the aforesaid period of six (06) weeks, interim stay grarted by this Court on 02.02.2022 shdl continue.

¶44