Harish Amilineni v. State Bank Of India
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI WRIT PETITION NO: 3904 OF 2020 Between:
1. Harish Amilineni, S/o. Dr A. Devarajulu Naidu, Aged about.47 Years, Occ. Bus]ness, Rl/o. B-1 , Manjeera Residency, Ashwini lay-out, Huda Heights, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.
...PETTTTONER(S) AND State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch 2nd Floor, TSRTC Building Koti Hyderabad. Rep by its Authorized Officer.
2. M/s. Mahajuicy Food Processing Pvt Ltd, Rep by its MD T. Madan Mohan Office Door No. 15, Tirumala Nilayam S.R Lane 4th Cross, Near Corporation Bank New Bell Road, Bangalore - 560 094.
3. Mr. A. Rajender, H.No. 2-4-143, Ramnagar, Hanmakonda, Warangal-506001
4. Mr. A. Raghu Kumar, Flat 6, Sneha Apartments Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad-500036.
...RESPONDENTS 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 toto issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nbture of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records and declare the order dated 31 .01.2020 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1 , Hyderabad in S.A No.9B of 20.18, as illegal, arbitrary, non application of mind, null and void and set aside the said order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-l at Hyderabad in S.A No.9B of 2018 and consequently declare that the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 25.02.2018 issued by the respondent no. 1 bank against the secured assets without following the due procedure is illegal, null and void and set aside the auction sale conducted on 28.03.2018 and pass a
lA NO: 1 Ol 2020 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 restrain the Respondent No.'1 Bank from registering the sale certificates in favour of the Respondents No.3 and 4 and further restrain the Respondents No.3 and 4 from changing/altering the physical features or from alienating/creating any third party interest or charge against the secured assets i.e., the properties purchased by the Respondents No.3 and 4 in the auction sale conducted on 28.03.2018 in pursuant to tre E-Auction Sale Notice dated 25.02.2018 issued by the Respondent No.1 Bank, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. BENJARAM SRENIVASA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents NO.1 : SRI CHITHARI PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents Nos : 2 & 4 Counsel forthe Respondents No.3 SRI P.PAVAN KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER
PNR.J & DT.GRR.J rf P No.3901o12020 Z THEHON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADIIA RANI WRIT PETITION No.3904 OF 2020 JUDGM ENTa @et Hon'btc Si Justice p. Naveen Rao) This writ petition is instituted challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, dated 31.01.2020 in SA No.98 of 201g against the decision of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I (DRT-D, Hyderabad.
2. Section 18 of the Act, 2002 provides remedy in the form of an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). Even though such remedy was available under the Act, contending that there was , t no Chairman to preside over the appellate Tribunal this writ petition was instituted. By order dated 25.02.2020 made in I.A. No. I of 2020 the Court granted interim direction as prayed for.
3. Leamed counsel for the l't respondent bank informed the court that the chairman is appointed to the DRAT and the DRAT is functioning now. In view of the same, the petitioner has to avail the remedy provided under Section 1 8 of the Act.
(I
\ ---- .\ PNR) & DT.GRRJ J tY P ""0.3901of2020
4. Granting the said liberty, this writ petition is disposed of.
5. It is not in dispute that when the writ petition was instituted, the DRAT was not functioning. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the period spent before this Court from the date of institution of the writ petition fbr a period of30 days from today enabling the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. Further, since the petitioner is enjoying the order passed bv this court on 25.02.2022, we are inclined to extend the said interim oldet'for a period of30 days from today. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall, stand closed.
SD/.G.SIRE HA ASSISTANT REGI RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER \ \ To,
1. One CC to SRl. BENJARAM SRENIVASA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to SRl. CHITHARI PRABHAKAR Advocate [OPUC] t.'
3. One CC to SRI.P.PAVAN KUMAR Advocate (OPUC)
4. Two CD CoPies
5. One SPare CoPY PM PS (_\ :: 5-
HIGH COUIlT DATED:041X812022
1. l -
ORDER
,,t-'- 1H sr4 14:
o,\,i\\ WP.No.3904 of 2O2O 01 l!:j\j 2W DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT C:OST.
* b \b w ))--