Dismissed

Mr. Ravi Kumar Pulli v. Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023WP/25509/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging an interim stay order by Debt Recovery Tribunal-II. Relying on Supreme Court precedents deprecating writ jurisdiction where statutory remedies under SARFAESI Act exist, the Court refused to entertain the petition but granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 18.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to file appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act; writ petition disposed of without costs.

Mr. Ravi Kumar Pulli Vs Iifl Home Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁷⁷ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 25509 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mr. Ravi Kumar Pulli, Sio- P. Ramanaiah, Age. 50 Years, Occ. Business,^Rl/o. Plot No. 80, Dwarakami Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, RangaReddy Dist, Telangana-501 508, Also at. Survey No. 96/4,^'1 16, P. No. 44lA, B. No.^2, Near Bank Colony, Sahebnagar Kalyan Village, Hayat Nagar, Ranga^Reddy Dist' Telangana-50'1505

¶11

...pETrroNER

¶12

AND

¶13

llFL Home Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Officer, My Home^Sarovar Plaza, 5191221B.i501, Secretariat Road, Ambedkar Colony, Adarsh^Nagar, Hyd-500004

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Atlicle 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the order dated^{30-8-2023 passed by the DebtsRecovery} Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad in 1A.No.264612023^{in S.A.No.356/2023granted interim} stay of taking^{physicalpossession} of^{petitioners propertyby the respondent} through Advocate Commissioner^{subject to petitioner depositing Rs.9,00,0001in} three installments of Rs.3,00,0001 each^{within one week from the date of this} gr.d-ef, the second installment is^directed to^{be depositedwithin two weeks} thereafter and the third installment^is directed to^{be deposited withinone week} thereafter directly with the respondent, in the^{event of failureof complianceof any} of the aforesaid cond itions, the^{interim stay shall stand vacatedand the} respondent shall be at liberty to^{proceedfurther} as^{per Rules, however such} proceedings shall be subject to outcome of the SA. as wholly^{illegal,arbitrary and}

¶16

.)/

¶17

¶18

in violation of Principles of natural justice and to grant stay of all further proceedings in l.A. No.264612023 in S A No 356/2023 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll Hyderabad including to take the physical possession of the petitioners property i.e. All that the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Plot No. 44/A land admeasuring 1 76 Sq. Yds or 147 Sq. Mts, in Survey No. 96/45 and 116/uu (near Bank Colony), situated at Sahebnagar Kalyan Village, Hayatnagar Revenue Mandal, under Ward No 5, Block No. of Hayat Nagar Circle-lll, with in G.H.M.C limits, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy Dist, Telangana in the interest of justice.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in 1.A.No.264612023 in S.A.No.356/2023 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll Hyderabad including to take the physical possession of the petitioner's property i.e. All that the piece and parcel of the Land bearing Plot No. 44lA land admeasuring 176 Sq. Yds or 147 Sq. Mts, in Survey No. 96/45 and 1 16/uu (near Bank Colony), situated at Sahebnagar Kalyan Village, Hayatnagar Revenue l,ilandal, under Ward No. 5, Block No. of Hayat Nagar Circlelll, with in G.H.M.C limits, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy Dist, Telangana until disposal of main writ petition in the interest of .lustice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRAVEEN BONKURI Counsel for the Respondent: -

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{ALOK ARADHE} AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JU^{STICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶26

{

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.255O9^of2023

¶28

ORDER:^(Per the Hon'ble^{the Chief JusticeAtok Aradhe)}

¶29

Mr. Praveen Bonkuri,^{learned counsel forthe} petittoner

¶30

In this^{petition, the petitionerhas assailed the} validity of order dated^{30.08.2023 passedby the Debts} Recovery Tribunal-ll,^{Hyderabad,in I.A.No.2646of 2023in} S.A.No.356 of 2023^{undcr the provisions of Securitisation} and Reconstruction^{of Financial Assetsand Enlorcementof} Security lnterest^{Act, 2OO2(for short,"SARFAESI Act")'}

¶31

Admittedly, against^{the aforesaidorder, the petitioner} has the remedy under^{Section1B of the SARFAESIAct'}

¶32

Honble Supreme Court^{in United Bank of India v'} Satyawati^{Tondonl has dcprecated the practice of the} High Courts in^{cntertainingthe writ petitionsdespite}

¶33

I (2010) 8 Sttprcrne Court Cascs^{I IO}

¶34

¶35

¶36

availability of an alternative rcmedy. The aforesaicl^view has also been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶37

Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu2. The relevant

¶38

¶39

cxtract of para 36 reads as under:

¶40

'36. In the instant case, although the respondent borrowers initiall_y approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by hling ar-r application under Section I7 ol thc SARFAtrSI Act, 2002, but the order of thc Tribunal rndeed u,as appealablc under Scction l8 of the Act subjcct to thc compliance of condition of pre-deposit and without exhausting the statutory remcdy of appeal, the respondent borrou'ers approached thc High Court by hling thc writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Wc deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by thc High Court in exercise ofjurisdiction undcr Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausLing the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid thc condition of prcdeposit contemplated under 2"d proviso to Section 18 0f the 2002 Act"

¶41

2 (2023) 2 Supreme C urrCases 168

{

In view of aforesaid enuncia[ion of law,^u'e are^not inclined to entertain the writ petition.^{However, libertyis} reserved to the petitioner to take^recourse to^{the remedy} under Section 18 of the^SARFAESIAct.

¶46