Sri Shivarathri Shiva Shankar v. Telangana Grameena Bank,
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER Writ Petition No.5967 of 2017 Order: (Per the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad in I.A. No. 3618 of 2016 in S.A. No. 585 of 2016 dated 31.1.2017. I.A. No. 3618 of 2016 was filed by the petitioners before the DRT seeking stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice of sale dated 2.12.2016 issued by the respondent-bank against the petition schedule property.
After the respondent-bank filed its counter, the DRT took note of the contentions urged both on behalf of the petitioners-applicants and the respondent-bank and, thereafter, granted interim stay of all further proceedings, including sale of the petition schedule property pursuant to the sale notice dated 2.12.2016 subject to the applicants depositing 30% of the total outstanding dues in two equal instalments, the first instalment of 15% within one week from the date of the order, and the balance 15% within two weeks thereafter directly with the respondent-bank. The DRT made it clear that, in the event of the non-compliance with the above conditions, the interim stay shall stand vacated and the respondent-bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the sale of the petition schedule property in accordance with law.
Sri Pavan Kumar Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the respondent-bank had not even served a
notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act') on the petitioners; likewise, the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was also not served on them; it is only after the caveat petition was served on them, did they come to know that the bank had initiated proceedings to put the property to sale; the DRT erred in not granting breathing time to the petitioners to repay the amount; and a minimum of three months time should be granted by the Court to the petitioners to comply with the interim order passed by the DRT.
On the other hand Sri S.Mujib Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-bank, would submit that the petitioners are chronic defaulters; despite the bank having complied with all the statutory requirements, no amount has been paid by the petitioners; the petitioners have not paid a single rupee in compliance with the order passed by the DRT'; and the request now made before this Court for grant of three months time is only to avoid payment of the amounts legitimately due to the respondent-bank.
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of the DRT, and all questions regarding violation, of the statutory provisions under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder, by the respondent-bank are matters for examination in S.A. No. 585 of 2016 which is pending on the file of the DRT, Hyderabad. The only question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is whether the DRT was justified in directing the
petitioners to pay the amounts referred to in the order impugned in this writ petition.
The DRT has merely directed the petitioners to deposit 30% of the total outstanding dues, that too, in two equal instalments, the first instalment of 15% within one week from the date of the order, and the remaining 15% within two weeks thereafter. The order of the Tribunal is dated 31.1.2017, and more than five weeks have since elapsed. The petitioners have, admittedly, not paid a single rupee after the DRT passed the order on 31.1.2017. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the order of the DRT, they have the remedy of preferring an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, which they chose not to avail. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not take upon itself the task of regulating repayment of the amounts due to the bank. Any request for extension of time can as well be addressed by the petitioners before the DRT itself.
Leaving it open to the petitioners, if they so choose, to request the DRT for extension of time, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) _____________________________ (Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J) 9th March, 2017 pnb
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER Writ Petition No.5967 of 2017 Date: 9.3.2017 pnb