Allowed

Nitin Kumar Agarwal v. M/s. Karur Vysya Bank

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023WP/20640/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the DRAT-II order dismissing the condonation application, directed the DRAT-II to condone the delay in depositing the second installment, and directed the DRAT-II to decide the pending appeal expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27.07.2023 passed by DRAT-II is set aside; delay is condoned; DRAT-II directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.

Nitin Kumar Agarwal Vs M/s. Karur Vysya Bank — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13377 1

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V,SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20640 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nitin Kumar Agan,ral, S/o. Vishwanath Agarural, Aged aboul 42 yrs, Occ : Business,^{FJo.5-9-1221N1131} , Flat No.31 , Maheshwari Residency, Adarshanagar, Hyderabad - 29.

¶9

Shilpa Agarwal, W/o. Nitin Kumar Agarwal, Aged abou! 40 yrs, OccHousehold, No.5-9-1221A.11131 , Flat No.31, lVlaheshwari Residency, Adarshanagar, Hyderabad - 29.

¶10

.....PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . M/s. Karur Vysya Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, situated at 5-8-356 to 362, lll Floor, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad - 01 .

¶13

The Authorised Officer, M/s. Karur Vysya Bank, Asset Recovery Branch, situated at 5-8-356 to 362, lll Floor, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad - 01.

¶14

M/s. Dharneesh Gold Pvt. Ltd, Repted by Mr. Kunal Gupta, S/o. Ramanlal Agarwal, Situated at- 5-9-122.A.1, Flat No.301 , Maheshwari Residency, Adarsh Nagar, Basheerbagh Road, Hyderabad - 500029.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue the direction or directions, more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action a Debt Recovery of Tribunal-ll situated at Hyderabad in not exercising the^jurisdiction in enlarging the time in^payment of the second installments l.A.No.^'1935/2023 in S.A.No . 13512022,^{d1.1910612O23} as illegal, arbitrary and not atcording to law and consequently, this Honourable Court may be pleased to enlarge the time for^payment of second^{installment in}

¶17

¶18

pursuance of the onlers in 1.A.No.79412023, dated 24tO312O23, ir the interest of justice.

¶19

I.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ:urrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Higl' Court rnay be pleased to condone the delay c f four days in complying the second installnrent as per the orders in 1.A.No.794 2023 dated 2410312023, pending dispo:;al of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petirioners : Sri Sharad Sanghi

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri G.Krishna Chailanya

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 :--

¶24

The Court made the following Order :-

¶25

l.'

¶26

----------7
.!
,/

¶27

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶28

WRIT PETII'ION No.20640 of 2023

¶29

ORDER:1per the Hon'ble the ChielJusticc Alok Aradhe)

¶30

Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel appears for the petltloners.

¶31

Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent bank.

¶32

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶33

In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery l-ribunal-Il, Hyderabad, under Section l7 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^(hereinafter referred to as 'the SARf'AESI Act'). By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has rejected the application preferred by petitioner No.l herein seeking condonation of delay occurred in complying with tl.re conditions contained in^{the order dated}

¶34

24.03.2023 with regard^{to making} the deposit.

¶35

are 4. Admiitedly, the petitior.rers mort!,ag,lrs and according to the petitioners, an amount of irpcroximately Rs.l 1 crore; is due from petitioner No.l . Respondent Nos. I & 2-Bank lrad taken measures against petitioner No.1 under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Tlre petitiorcr No.l thereupon filed an appeal under Section l7 of th: ;IARFAESI Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by an ord:r dated 24.03.2023 ,lirected the petitioner No.l to rnake pi,ynrcnt of a sum of Rs.l 60,00,000.00 in two installments in^rhr: f<rllowing

¶36

tllalr ner:

¶37

l. First installment of lts.80,00,000.00 up to 10.04 2(t23

¶38

Second installment of Rs.80,00,000.00 up to^(t4.05.2023.

¶39

The petitiorrer No.l deposited the first insrta llnrent of Rs.80,00,00(.00 on 10.04.2023. Thereatier, tlie second installment cf Rs.80,00,000.00 was deposite d by hrm on four dates as follows:

¶40

Amount	Date
Rs.I^(t.00.000.00	01.052013
Rs.11,50,000.00	t6.06.20t3
Rs.50OCr0.00	re.06.20.r3
Rs.5000.000.00	20.06.20').3

¶41

CJ & NVSK. J W.P.No.20640 of2023

, I

Thus, petitioner No. I has deposited the entire amount as directed by the Tribunal by its order dated 24.03.2023. I{owever, there is a delay of approximately 45,48 and 49 days in depositing the second installment. Petitioner No. I therefore filed an application seeking condonation of delay complying with the condition imposed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 24.03,2023. I-lowever,, the aforesaid application has been rejected by the'Iribunal.

¶46

In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.

¶47

The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 09.08.2023 had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. In cornpliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- with the bank.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have shown their bona fides and due to circumstances beyond their control, there was approximately

¶49

delay of 45, 48, 49 days in depositing the instalments.

¶50

¶51

On the other hand, learned counsel for th,:^'esrondent bank has submitted that an arrount of Rs.50 00,0(t0'- l-as been deposited by the petitioners with the respond:nt b:rnti.

¶52

In viev of aforesaid submissions and t'rking irrto account the fact that the petitioners have complied with th; direction contained in the order dated 09.08.2023 passed b1' thi; Court, the order deted 27.07.2023 passed by the DeLts llecovery Tribur.ral-Il,^-{yderabad, is set aside and thr: delay in rnaking deposit of tre amounl as directed by the Debts ILecovery Tribunal-ll i; condoned. The Debts Recoverv l'ribulral-Il is further direc.ed to decide the appeal prelerred by petitioners expeditiousll .

¶53

Accorc ingly, the petition is disposed oL

¶54

Miscel aneous applications,, if any pending,, shall stand

¶55

closed. lhert, shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

¶57

SD/- F'. CH. Nr\Gr\BHUSHAMBA ASSIS]-ATIT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

-tL.

SECTION OFFICER

The Branch Mitnager, M/s.^{Karur Vysya Bank, AssetRet;overy' Branch,} situated at 5-8 356 to 362,^{lll Floor, Chirag Ali Lan':,Abitls, Hyderabad} -^{01 .}

¶62

The Authoriser I Officer,^{4,4/s. Karur Vysya Bank, At,setRt:crrvery Branch,} situated at 5-8.356 to 362,^{lll Floor, Chirag Ali Lan:, Abirls. Hyderabad - 01.}

¶63

One CC to Sri Sharad Sanghi,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to Sri G.Krishna Chaitanya, Advocate [OF'UC]

¶65

Two CD Copie^s

SA GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:051091?.023

ORDER

WP.No.20640 of 2023

.,4
6E 5T416.
4?^
/*if,o ('i
l'J 10 0[i2m .
\ /=
)
\ .<br>,l ,,r

¶72

DISPOSING C}F THE W.P

¶73

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶74

4
,. /L
)-b l-_ -)

Nitin Kumar Agarwal v. M/s. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Kumar Agarwal v. M/s. Karur Vysya 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

Katla Rajitha Vs The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Katla Rajitha Vs The Honble Lokayukta for the State of Telangana

Kishan (Died Per Lrs) and 4 Others Vs the Government of a.P., Tribal Welfare Dept., and 3 Others

M/S.Amrutha Estates.Hyd. Vs Sapphire Residents Welfare Association

M/S. Amrutha Estates, Hyd Vs Emerald Apartments Owners Assn and 3 Ors.

Venkateshwara Silk Mills (P) Ltd., Vs The Inspecting Officer