The Telangana High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, citing the Supreme Court's view that alternative statutory remedies under the Act must be exhausted first.
Writ petition not entertained; liberty reserved to approach the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
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.
I
[3377 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 13666 OF 2023
Between:
Koya Rajesh, S/o Koya Ramaiah,. Age. 40 Years, Occ. Business,R/o 4-1-638/4' Khlnapuiam Haveli, By-pass Road, RotaryNagar,Khammam, Telangana ..pE,TtoNER
AND
lClCl Bank,, Rep. by its Authorized Officer and GPA Holder,Rl/o GachibowlihElgsr^?jg$, Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, theHigh Courtmay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction moreparticularly,one in thenature of a Writ of Mandamusby declaring the action of the Respondent in invoking theprovisions of SARFAESIActand obtaining the order Dt.15.05.2023 from theHonbleChief Judicial Magistrate Court, At Khammam in Crl.M.P. No. 2 of 2021 as illegal arbitraryand violationof the provisions of SARFAESI Ac1,2002 and the Rules made thereunderand also in violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and set aside thesarhe
IA.NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Courtmaybe pleased to stay of all further proceedings order Dt.1 5.05 .2023 from the Honble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,At Khammam in Crl.M.P. No. 2 of 2021pending disposal of theabovewrit petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANIRUDH SADHU, COUNSELFOR
SMT. V. MYTHILI
Counsel for Respondent: SRI G. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE'tH[ CHIEF JUS'TICT, ALOK ARAI)HE ANI) TIIE HON'I]LE SRI JUSI'ICE N.V.SHTL{VAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.13666 of 2023
ORI)ER:1pcr. tlrc llon'blc rhc Ch icf .tusrrcq AIok :\r.rrclhc)
Mr. Anirudh Sadhu, lcamcd counscl appears lbr Ms. V. Mythili, lear:ned counscl tbr tlie petitioner
'(zo rg)s scc9+
cJ & \rs[..1 ',<sup>P N?, lllrn)rr.l202.1
1
*16. In tllc irstant casc. tltltouglt thc rcspolldcnl borrou,ers initialll approachcdthcDebts Recovcrv Tribulal by lilinr:arr applicatiotr undcrSection l7 ol- the SARFAESI Act. 2002. butthe ordel of the l'ribunal indeedrras appcalableunder Section l8 ol' the Ac1 suhiccl to theconrpliarrceol condition of pre-deposit and\ithouterhausting the statutory rcrncd), oI appcal, thcrespondentborrorvers approached thc lligh Court byfiling the rvrit application undel Articlc226of the Constitution. We dcprecatc sLtchpracticc ol'l:ntcnainingthe writ applrcation b1' thcHigh Court in exercise oI jurisdiction undcr Article 226 of the Constitution \vithout exhausting thealternativestatulory remedy available under the law.'lhiscircuitousrouteappears to have been adopted toavoid thecondition ofpre- deposit conternplatcdun{er2"d proviso to Scction l8 ol rhe 2002 Act"
2 (2O lO) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110
3 (2023) 2 SuPreme Court Cases 168
C.J & \VSK .] -) r'. I . i.lt)66 ot2(rt l
1 With the afbresaid liberty, the r,r,rit pctirion is disposed of.
Miscellar.reous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.'l'here shall be no order as to costs.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
SD/-N. CHANDRA SEKHA ASSTSTANT REGtgTRAR
./ SECTION OFFICER
1 9n" 99 !o !m!VjMythiti Advocate tOpUCl 2 One CC to Sri G Kalyan Chakravarthy Advocate tOpUCl 3 Two CD Copies MBC LS
t
t
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0610912023
(_ s rarE
(
& t2
i'
o >/
[s SiP tul
+
t oespr\l 6S x9
ORDER
WP.No.13666 of 2023
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS
(- I >3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether order dated 15.05.2023 of the C.J.M. passed under Section 14 SARFAESI Act is liable to be challenged straightaway via writ jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal vs. Central Bank of IndiaFollowed¶24
Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal vs. Central Bank of India
United Bank of India v. Satyavati TondonFollowed¶28
United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tondon
Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. SreenivasuluReferred¶28
Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ms. V. Mythili
ICICI Bank
Alok Aradhak
N. V. Shraavan Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
