State Bank Of India v. M/S Ghanshyamdas Gems And Jewels

[ 33e3 ]

IN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 22012 OF 2019 Between:

State Bank of lndia, Hyderabad Main Branch Bank Street, Koti Hyderabad, Rep' by its Asst' General Manager ...pETrroNER AND '1 . M/s Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels, IvlayurKushal Complex Abids, Hyderabad Rep. by its Managing Partner

2. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, S/o Balkishan Agarwal Aged about 34 years 3 Ajay Kumar, S/o Balkishan Agarwal

4. Sri Balakrishan, S/o Late Ghanshyamdasji

5. Smt.ParmilaBai, W/o Balakrishnanan

6. Sri Vinay Kumar, S/o Balakishan

7. Smt.ShantaBai, Wio Late Ghanshyamdasji Atl the Respondents are residing at H.No'1-2-593/17, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly the,one^in. the nature writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to oA No. 45712011 on the file of The Debts Recovery Tribunal-l, Hyderabad and to quash the docket order passed by the DRT-I Hyderabad in lA No. 263312017 in oA No. 45712011 dated'21-O2-20 i 9 as illegal, high handed, arbitrary and against to the well settled principles of Law and to dismiss the said lA with costs etc

lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 o.A.No.45712011 on the fiie of the DRT-1, Hyderabad pending disposal of the main Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.B. RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: Ms. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 7: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE THE CIIIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND TIIE HON'BLE SHRI WSTICE ANIL I(['MAR JT'XANTI WRIT PETITION No'220L2 of 2OL9 ORDER: eer the Hon'ble the ChieI Justi@ Alok Arodhe) Mr. K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.

2.

This writ petition has been filed against the order d,ated 21.02,2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993'

3.

Admittedly, against the aforesaid order, an appeal lies before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act' 1993, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal'

4.

The Supreme Court in United Bank of India v Satyawati Tondonr has deprecated the practice of the High Courts in entertaining the writ petitions despite availability of an alternative remedy. The aforesaid vier,r. has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu2. The relevant extract of para 36 reads as under "36. In the instant case, although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by frling an application under Section 17 of 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 ald without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

We deprecate such practice of entertzrining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under 2"a proviso to Section 18 of the 2OO2 Act."

5.

The view taken in Satyawati Tondon (supra) has been reaffirmed by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank in Civil Appeal No.4845 of 2024, dated 1O.O4.2024. 1 (2010) 8 SCC 110 2 (20231 2 scc 168

J 6.

In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of appeal. It is directed that for a period of eight weeks, the interim order granted in this writ petition, if any, shall continue and in case the petitioner files an appeal within the a-foresaid period of eight weeks from today, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall extend the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the petitioner'

7. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition ls disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs' sD/'Pcrlrs+f;$PHE8SHRA ./ //TRUE CoPY// vSECTION OFFTCER s M av u rKu s h a To, bk[dl'f'df,'#,*"&,#^d,il-,il*iil"

2a Two CD CoPies BN GJP up

HIGH COURT DATED:0210512024

ORDER

.r.- 'Jir''1 , WP.No.22012 of 2019 i (:

).

oo 2 i JUN ztl?t ,.,-cr"'(- tl) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,\'t