Dismissed

Navneet Agarwal v. The State Bank of India

Telangana HC1 Apr 2022WP/16877/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Debt Recovery Tribunal order requiring deposit of auction proceeds. The Court held that the order was interlocutory, no court had determined the petitioner's share, and there was no order by the bank. It directed the party to approach the DRAT or the Tribunal instead.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. No order as to costs initially, though subsequent order indicates dismissal without costs and closure of pending miscellaneous applications.

Navneet Agarwal Vs The State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

wRt T PE T tTtON NO: 16877 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Navneet Agarwal. D/o Shankarlal Agarwal Aged 35 years, occ. House wife, R/o N902, PurvaBlumont Apartment, Singanallur, Trichy Road, Coimbatore.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State Bank of lndia, rep by Authorised Officer, Stressed Assets Management Branch-ll Kacheguda. Hyderabad.

¶13

The Authorised Officer and Chief Manager, State bank of lndia, SME Branch, 3rd Floor, Above Westside, Hyderabad.

¶14

lvl/s Navneeta Steels Private Limited, Rep by Sri ShankarlalAgarwal, R:/o Plot No. 152. 8-2-293lB2lP N/1 52, Prashasan Nagar, Road No. 72, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

¶15

4 The Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Through the Presiding fficer, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the order of the Honourable Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in lA No. 187 of 2022 in lhe SA NO. 55 of 2022. diecling the petitioner to pay the 20% of the proposed auction price which comes to Rs.^{'1,50,00,0001} (One Crore Fifty Lakhs) in two instalments that is 75 lakhs in each instalment as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural^justice and consequently modify the said orders duly deleting the condition imposed in the order in the interest of justice.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

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 condilion of payment of 2opercent of the proposed auction price which comes to Rs 1,50.00,000/- (One Crore Fifty Lakhs) in the orders of Honourable Debt Recovery Tribunal. Hyderabad. in lA No. 187 ot 2022 in the SA NO. 55 of 2022, in the interest of^justice,

¶20

Counsel for the Petilioner:SRl. SURENDRA DESAI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRl. A. KRISHNAM RAJU, SC FOR SBI

¶22

Coiinsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: NONE APPEARED

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HONOURABLEMRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NAIIDA

¶27

WFIIT PETITION No.16877 of 2022

¶28

OEDEE: per flcn'bte Sn ._izstrce IJjjaI Bhugan)

¶29

Heard Mr. Surender Desai, learned counsel fo.: the petitioner ald Mr. A. Krishnam Raiu, Iearned counst:l for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 State Bank ol Inrlia.

¶30

in tliis wril petition, pctitioner has challe.eged docket order rlated n.A3.2O22 passeri by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-i at H-y<ierabari (Triirulal) in I.A.No. ItiZ of 2022 h S.A.No.tiS ot,202,2.

¶31

lt is stated that 3.d respondent as ttre borrc,wer had availed lcarr from respondcnt State Bank of India. For default in repa.vment. rcspondent Stat: Ha,k of IrLdia initiated procecdings under thc Securitisation imd Reconstruction rlf Fii,.tncial Assets and lJnf.orcement of Security trnterest Act, )i)O2 (brie{ly refcrred to hereina_fter as the 'SARFAtrSi Act.,). ..is a conscquence. respondent State

¶32

¶33

UB,J &SN,J W.P.No.16877 of 2022

¶34

Bank of India has proposed to auction sale the schedule property. It is stated that the schedule property is an ancestral property to which^petitioner is entitled to a^share. To assert her right, petitioner has filed a suit for^partition being O.S.No.248 of 2021,^rvhich is stated to^{be pendingon} t1e file of XXVI Additiona.l Chief Judge, City Civil^Court, Hyderabati.

¶35

Earlier w'hen the secured creditor had issued auction sale notice,^{petitioner had approached} this Court^b;r lrling W.P.No.12962 of )O'22, which was disposed of^bv directing the petitione r to approach the^Tribunal. Consequentl,y, petitioncr approached the Tribunal^{and liled} S.A.No.SS of 2022. t'etitioner also filed an interlocutory application beir.rg I.A.No. 187 of 2O22 for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to auction sale notice dated 05.02.20)). Bv the docket order dated^23.03.2022, 'l'ribunal sl a-r,rsd furtl-rt:r proceedings pursuant to the auction salc notice datcd 05.02.2022 subject to the condition that petitioncr rleposits a. surn of Rs. 1.5 crores in t.l'o

¶36

¶37

UB,J &SN,J W. P. No. 1687'? of 2O22

¶38

installmsnl5 directly with t}re respondent State Eiank of India. It has been clarilied that in the el ent of non-compliance, respondent State Bank of India wruld be at liberty tc, procee(i furthe r irr accordance <sup>-ilh law. I.A.No. 187 of 2O22 isnowposted on26.O4.2022.

¶39

Mr. A.Krisirnam Raju, learned counsel for t1-e respondent State Bank of India submits that Tribunal has directed pa),Tnent of Rs. 1.5 crores in view of the reserve price of Rs.6.25 crores fixed b,y the respontlent State Bank of Intlia in connection q,ith t-he ;iu..:tion sale, wrich is commensurate to her share of the schcdule property.

¶40

We a,re not inclined to entertain the rrrit retition for more tha.,.r one reason. Firstl-y, the dor'k-ct rrrde r dated '23.03-2022 is an interlocutory order. I.A.No. 187 of 2022 is still pending before the Tribunal. next clate being '26.04.2022. Secondll,, the borrower has not approached either thr.s Coufl. or the Tribunal challenging I he action taken by the responclent State Bank of inriia trnrler the SARFAESI Act. Thirrllr'. there is no ordcr of anr Court

¶41

¶42

UB,J &SN,J W.P.No.16877 of 2022

¶43

including the civil Court^{determining ttre share of the} petitioner in the schedule^{propertyholdingthe same as} ancestral property.^{Lastly,once a propertyis put up as a} secured asset to avail^{credit from the secured creditor,} recourse to the civil Court^{uis-a-tristhc schedule property is} not permissible.^{That apart,if the petitioner is aggrievedby} the docket order^{datecl 23.03.2022, she mav file appeal} before the Debts^{Recove r,v AppeilateTribunal,Kolkata} under Sectirtn 18 of the^{SARIi'AESI Act. We see no good} reason to entertain^{the r.wit petition.}

¶44

7 . Writ I'elition is accordingl-'^{dismiss<:d.However,} there shall be^{rtc order as to costs.}

¶45

As a sequel, misccllaneous^{applicationspending,}

¶46

if any, in this Wr,t^{Pctition, shall stanti closed'}

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

SD/.PADMANAB REDDY ASSISTANT C

¶49

SECTION^OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

The Presidinq^{Officer' Debt Recovery Tribunal-1' Hyderatlad} i. O^. CC t^{Si. Surendra Desai' AdvocatetOPUgl} - ;. o;; aa^io iri^{n rrlsnoamRaju SC for SBI IoPUC]} 4. Two CD Copies

¶52

One SPare^CoPY

¶53

PM GJP^Al-

¶54

. l -lhL

¶55

TIIGH COURT ItATED:011O4t2022

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.16877 of 2022

¶58

=:-\u 6><br>'d.\
/!. a( @
lt ?$It f ,<br>$B SEP
1

¶59

Dismissing the Wp Vt/ithout costrs.

¶60

( L.'t
na'
t/,4{lw-'-

Navneet Agarwal v. The State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navneet Agarwal v. The State Bank of India

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

Mohd. Sohail Ahmed and 2 others Vs Canfin Homes Limited and another

Mohd. Saifullah Vs Canfin Homes Limited (Sponsor Canara Bank) and Another

Mrs. Masiya Afreen and 2 others Vs Canfin Homes Limited and another

T.Raghu babu Vs Reserve Bank of India and another

Mr. Pentaiah Yerram Vs Bank of India

M/s Kayjee Engineers Vs City Union Bank Limited