Disposed

Dr. v. Ranga Reddy S/o Sri engal Reddy v Central Bank of India Corporte Finance Branch

Telangana HC21 Feb 2024WP/18606/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Magistrate's order under Section 14 SARFAESI Act appointing an Advocate Commissioner via writ petition. Citing Supreme Court precedent deprecating bypassing the statutory remedy, the Court declined to entertain it, disposed of the petition with liberty to appeal before the DRT within four weeks with limitation-Act relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs; liberty to approach DRT under Section 77 SARFAESI Act with Section 14 Limitation Act benefit if appeal filed within four weeks.

Dr. v. Ranga Reddy S/o Sri engal Reddy Vs Central… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I l

¶2

[³³⁹³ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 18606 OF 2006

¶10

Between:

¶11

Dr. V. Ranga Reddy S/o Sri Vengal Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner, Rlo # 4720, while Deer Court Spring Field, lL-627'1 1, USA, rep. by his GPA Holder Sri. O. Jagannadha Reddy, Sio Late Sri L.L.N. Reddy, aged about 48 years, Occ: Professional Chartered Accountant, R/o Flat No. 201 , Jaya Enclave, tVlCH. No. 1-11-26, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶12

AND

¶13

...PET|T|ONER

¶14

1 . Central Bank of lndia Corporate Finance Branch, Hyderabad, rep. by Authorised Officer Sri N. Rama Krishna

¶15

Asset Recovery Management Yard Private Limited, Near Reddy, womens College, narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

¶16

M/s. Consumer Awareness and Research Society Trust, #6-1-6711113, Fkst Floor, Adjacent to Kalabhavan, P.G. Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

Smt. L. manisha Advocate Commissioner, Hyderabad 5. Chakkilam Raghuram^{(Died per} Lrs as RR 6 &^7), S/o Late Sri^C. Venkatesam, #6-3-663/15/A, Zafer Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

¶18

Chakkilam Uma, Wio Late Sri C.Raghuram, Aged about 50 Years, R/o. 6-3663/15/A, Jaffer Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶19

Chakkilam Aishwarya, D/o Late Sri C.Raghuram Aged about 25 Years,^Rl/o. 6- 3-663/1 5/A, Jaffer Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. (Respondent No. 6 and 7 are brought on record as Lrs. of deceased Respondent No.S, as per Court Order dated 13.02.2024 Vide lA.No.'l of²⁰²⁴ in wP' No 18606 of 2006)

¶20

...RES'.NDENTS

¶21

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 p{eased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the^proceedings of the of the^{lowerCourt dated} 25-3-2OO5 in Crl. M.P. No. 135/2005 and all further^{proceedings,including the} appointment of the fourth respondent as Advocate Commissioner as^per the

¶22

Warrant dated 27-12-2005, as illegal, without Jurisdiction, and as vitiated by gross violation of principles of natural justice.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 23401 OF 2006 )

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased stay the operation of the proceedings of the lower Court dated 25-3-2005 in Crl. MP No. 135/2005 and all fu(her proceedings, including the warrant dated 27-12-2005 issued to the fourth respondenl.

¶25

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 34305 OF 2007)

¶26

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 amend the prayer in the writ petition by inserting an alternative prayer by adding the words or in alternatively the action of the fist respondent invoking the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security lnterest AcI,20O2(SAFRFAESI Act) against the petitioner herein who is neither a borrower nor a guarantor as illegal, and vitiated by gross violalion of principles of natural justice after the *ot. nro.. violation of principles of natural justice. I

¶27

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(WVMP. NO: 2803 OF 2007)

¶28

Between:

¶29

Cenkal Bank of India Corporate Finance Branch, Hyderabad, rep. by Authorised Officer Sri N. Rama Krishna

¶30

...PETITIONER/ 1^S( RESPONDENT AND

¶31

1 Dr. V. Ranga Reddy S/o Sri Vengal Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner, No # 4720, while Deer Court Spring Field, lL-62711 , USA, rep. by his GPA Holder Sri. O. Jagannadha Reddy, S/o Late Sri L.L.N. Reddy, aged about 48 years, Occ: Professional Chartered Accountant, Fl/o Flat No. 2O1 , Jaya Enclave, MCH. No. 1-11-26, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶32

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶33

Asset Recovery Management Yard Private Limited, Near Reddy, womens College, narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

¶34

M/s. Consumer Awareness and Research Society Trust, #6-1-6111113, Ftst Floor, Adjacent to Kalabhavan, P.G. Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶35

Smt. L. manisha Advocate Commissioner, Hvd erabad 5. Chakkilam Raghuram (Died per Lrs as RR 6& 7), S/o Late Sri C. Venkatesam, #6-3-663/15/A, Zafer Ali Bag h,Somajiguda, Hyderabad

¶36

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶37

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 vacate the interim orders passed in WP-MP.No.23401 of 2O06 on 8-9-2006.

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. S.SUDEEPTHI FOR SRI M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: SRI DEEPAK MISRA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: -

¶39

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶40

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶41

AND

¶42

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶43

WRIT PETITION No. 186O6 of 2o,06

¶44

ORDER; (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

¶45

Ms. S.Sudeepthi, learned counsel representing Mr. M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶46

Mr. Deepak Misra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶47

In this writ petition, the petition er inter alia has prayed for the following relief:

¶48

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is-hercby prayed that this Hon trle Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature o[ writ of Mandamus, declaring that the proceedings of the lower court i.e. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, dated 25.O3.2005 in CrI.M.p.No.135/2OO5 and a-11 further proceedings, including the appointment of the fourth respondent as Advocatc Commiqioncr as pcr thc Wa_rrant _..-\

¶49

¶50

dated 27.12.2OO5, as illegal, wrthout jurisdiction, and as vitiated by gross violation of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

¶51

Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has assailed the validity of an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'SARFAESI Act').

¶52

Hon'trle Supreme Court in United Bank of India

¶53

v Satyawati Tondonr has deprecated the practice of the High Courts in entertaining the writ petitions despite availability of an a-lternative remedy. The aforesaid view has also been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu2. The relevant extract of para 36 reads as under:

¶54

"36. ln the instant case, although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an

¶55

r (tolo) 8 scc 1r0 2 (2023]' 2 SCC 168

¶56

¶57

application under Section I7 ol the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of pre-deposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appcal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by hling the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice o[ entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the altemative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section I8 of the 2OO2 Acr"

¶58

¶59

A Bench of this Court by a detailed order dated 09.O1.2024 passed in W.P.No.33239 ol 2O23 has held that against €rn order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, an aggrieved person has the remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶60

In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition

¶61

¶62

Needless to state that it will be open for the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available to him under Section 77 of the SARFAESI Act. It is also made clear that in case petitioner files an appeal within a period of four (04) weeks from the date o[ receipt of a copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of principle contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶63

With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ perition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶64

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶65

shall stand closed.

¶66

SD/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

l.TheAuthorizedofficerSriN.RamaKrishnaCentralBankoflndiaCorporate Finance Branch,^HYderabad 2. bn5 ic idEiii^{ii.V.b-uCcA PRASAD,} f{vocaleJQ!.tlpl 3. #; cc io 5Hi^{M.sntxeNrHREDDY,Advoca-te[-qPUC]} 4. il; ca io^{snr oeepex MlsRA, Advocate [oPUC]} 5. Two CD CoPies PSK. KKS W

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10212024

ORDER

WP.No.18606 of 2006

i ri'tn .:'
tjl Ir I' I
/

¶76

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.