Maru Sreesaran v. Magma Fincorp Limited And Another

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 28813 OF 2019 Between:

lVlaru Sreesaran, S/o. NI. Sudhakar Reddy, Age. 34 yrs, Occ. Business, Ri/o. No. 664, 3RD Cross, Collector Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai ...PETITIONER AND Magma Fincorp Limited, Mandhana Towers, Room No. 301-302, 3rd Floor. DK Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500016 Also at:

Development House,24 Park Street, Kolkata - 700016

2. Srinivas Rao Thotakura, S/o. not known, Age. Major, Occ. not known, previously resident of H. No. 7-3-29212, Plot No. 3, Khanapuram Haveli, Gram Panchayat, Khammam .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of lvlandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not issuing a sale certificate and implementing the sale conducted by it in furtherance of its notice of sale by private treaty dated 10/09/2019 and in further seeking to indulge into a settlement with the 2nd Respondent / Borrower pursuant to the said sale, upon the Orders dated 2511112019 passed by the Learned DRT-|, Hyderabad in SA No.

'134 of 2019 and to further declare the said order dated 2511112019 passed by the Learned DRT-1, Hyderabad in SA No. 134 ol 20'19 as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutiona l, apart from being violatrve of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security lnterest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and unco nstitutiona I and set aside the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to forthwith issue a sale certificate in favour of the Petitioner by handing over the possession of the schedule property purchased through private treaty in furtherance of the notice dated 10t09t2019.

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 direct the 1st Respondent to issue a sale certificate by handing over the possession of the scheduled property in furtherance of the notice dated 10/09/2019, pending disposal of the writ petition.

lA NO: 2 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 stay all further proceedings in SA No. 134 of 2019, before DRT-1, Hyderabad, including the order dated 2511112019 passed by the Learned Tribunal, pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. PASHAM MOHITH Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. S. KESHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRl. KOWTURI PAWAN KUMAR The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.28813 of 2OL9 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sn Jas tice A.Raiasheker Reddu) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 1"t respondent in not implementing the sale conducted by it in furtherance of its notice of sale by private treaty dated 10.09.20i9 and in seeking to indulge into a settlement with the 2nd respondent/ borrower pursuant to the said sale upon the orders dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal) in S.A.No. 134 of 2019, as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential directions.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the newspaper advertisement published by the 1"t respondent on 10.O9.2O 19 in Business Standard, Hyderabad Edition for sale of an immovable property vide H.No.7-3-29212, situated in RS No.279, covered by Plot No.3 of Kannapuram Haveli Grama Panchayat, Khammam Mandal (for short 'the subject property), the petitioner submitted an application on 25.O9.2O19 intimating his willingness to purchase the subject property for an amount of Rs. 1,44,00,009/- and paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as advance. The 1st respondent sent a communication dated 26.09.2019 to the petitioner confirming the offer made by him so also the sale consideration and called upon the petitioner to pay 25o/o of the sale consideration. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2 1 ,00,000/ - to the 1"t respondent towards 25ok of the sale consideration on 27 .O9.2019 and also paid an amount of Rs.85,00,000/- on 11.10.2019 and .remaining amount of Rs.23,00,000/- through demand draft dated 18.10.2019. After making

payment of entire sale consideration, when the petitioner insisted for inspection of the subject property as well as for issuance of receipts for the amounts paid, the 1st respondent informed him about filing of S.A.No.134 of 2079 by the 2"a respondent belore the Tribunal, wherein an interim order had been passed in favour of the 2"d respondent on 22.04.2019, which was not complied with by him, as such, the conditional interim order was deemed to have been vacated. The petitioner was informed about issuance of final notice on 15.10.2019 against the 2"d respondent intimating him to remove the belongings and movables from the subject property. The petitioner was further informed about the order passed by the Tribunal on 25.1 1.

2019, wherein the Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent to repay the outstanding amounts and also directed the 1st respondent to accept the same in full within one month. Aggrieved by the order of the . Tribunal, the lst respondent preferred a Statutory Appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, which is pending. The 1.t respondent issued a notice under Rule 8(6) of the Enforcement Rules, 2OO2 before which the 2.d respondent had an opportunity of redeeming the subject property by making payment of the outstanding amounts, but no amounts were paid by tl,e 2"d respondent, thereby forfeited his right to make any claims for redemption of the subject property. The petitioner purchased the subject property after lapse of 15 days, by paying full sale consideration, which was accepted by the 1"t respondent as final sale price.

Non-issuance of the sale certificate does not affect the sale conducted by the 1"t respondent, as such, the 2"d respondent cannot offer to make any payment to the lst respondent and the 1"t respondent is not entitled to receive the said amounts, as the subject property was already sold to the petitioner.

-) 2"d respondent does not have any right whatsoever to claim any right to redemption of property.

3.

Counter affidavit is filed by the 1"r respondent admitting all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition but denied the allegation that the 1"t respondent has accepted to receive the amounts from the 2"d respondent basing on the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 of the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent is the principal borrower and his wife was the co-borrower for the loan facility to a tune of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- availed from the 1"t respondent. As the 2"d respondent failed to repay the loan amount, his account was declared as 'Non-Performing Asset' (NPA) and by invoking the provisions of the Act, 2OO2, issued paper publication on 01.04.2O19 calling upon the general public that the subject property was put on auction on 24.O4.2019.

Aggrieved by the said paper publication, the 2"d respondent filed Securitization Application i.e., S.A.No.134 of 2019 before the Tribunal, in which interim order was granted on 22.O4.2OI9, wherein and whereby, the 2"d respondent was directed to deposit 3OVo of the due amount within three weeks, out of which initial 157o was to be deposited in a week and balance 1570 was to be deposited in next two weeks. In spite of such conditional stay granted by the Tribunal, the 2"a respondent failed to pay the said amounts, due to which the conditional stay granted by the Tribunal got vacated. Since there were no orders passed by any judicial authority restraining the lst respondent from disposing of the property, the l"t respondent once again caused paper publication on 1O.O7 .2019 calling upon bidders to participate in open auction on 30.07.

2019, in spite of the same, no prospective purchaser came forwaid to participate in the eauction, which was conducted on 30.07.2019.

respondent issued another paper publication on 10.09.2O19 for selling the property under private treaty, to which the petitioner responded and paid entire sale consideration in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2OO2. The Tribunal, without considering the fact that the subject property was sold through private treaty and the borrower/ 2nd respondent has no authority for redemption of the subject property, passed impugned orders on 25.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent preferred statutory appeal before the DRAT, Calcutta, which is pending and sought for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Tribunal.

4.

Counter affidavit is filed by the 2"d respondent denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stating that he is not aware of the paper publication dated 10.09.2019 issued by the l"t respondent for sale of the subject property. He is also not . aware o[ the olfer made by the petitioner and acceptance by the l st respondent in respect of sale ol the subject property through private treaty so also the receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,44,00,009/- thereof and that against sale notice dated 01.O4.2O19, S.A.No.134 of 2079 is pending before the Tribunal. The sale of the subject property through e-auction under private treaty is against the provisions of the Act of 2OO2. Due.to domestic problems, the 2nd respondent could not comply with the conditional order passed by the Tribunal on 22.04.2019 in S.A.

No. 134 of 2019, but it is mentioned in the interim order that e-auction dated 23.04.2019 will be subject to resuit of main SA since the validity of the proceedings are under challenge before the Tribunal, as sueh, e-auction proceedings are not sustainable.

his property. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent was ready and willing to pay Rs.80 lakhs at the time of passing impugned order dated 25.1I.2019 and the 1st respondent was ready to accept the same. The 2"d respondent came to know about filing of the writ petition so also the filing of Statutory Appeal before the DRAT, Calcutta against order of the Tribunal dated 25.1 I .2019 . Though the 2"d respondent liled application i.e., I.A.No.3336 of 2Ol9 on 76.72.2019 seeking permission to deposit the outstanding dues before the Tribunal, the lst respondent did not accept the same. It is asserted that though the 2"d respondent was ready and willing to clear of the dues on 31.10.2019 i.e., much prior to passing of the impugned order, the 1st respondent conducted auction in violation of the Act of 2OO2. As per the impugned order dated 25.11.2019, though the 2"d respondent was ready to pay the total dues, the same was not accepted by the 1"t respondent, as such, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5.

Rejoinder is filed to the counter affidavit fi1ed by the 2"d respondent denying the averments therein stating that the respondents in connivance with each other obtained impugned order dated 25. ll.2Ol9 in S.A.No.134 of 2019, though the 2"d respondent had no right of redemption considering that the sale was already concluded in favour of the petitioner. The redemption of the subject property by the 2"d respondent is legally barred by virtue of Section 13(8) of the Act of 2Q02. S.A No.l34 ol 279 filed by the 2nd respondent challenging the e-auction notice dated 01.01.2019 is illegal and in fact, e-auction notices were issued on several occasions vide 19.01.2019, Ol.O4.2Ol9, 11.05.2019, 12.06.2019 and 1O.O7.2019 and on all such occasions, no bidders were forthcoming. As such, final notice for private treaty was published on 10.09.2019. It is asserted that non-

challenge to private treaty notice by the 2nd respondent is illegal. The Tribunal cannot pass any orders in S.A.No.134 ol 2Ol9 since the present sale is not being conducted under the said auction notice which is the subject matter of the S.A. The 2nd respondent was aware of the private treaty and purchase of the subject property by the petitioner. The 2"d respondent does not have any right to redemption pursuant to the auction notice/private treaty notice issued by the 1"t respondent, by foilowing the procedure envisaged under the Act of 2002. 'fh.e order dated 31.10.2019 of the Tribunal is illegal and is in clear violation of Section 13(8) of the Act. The reserve price was never challenged when the initial notice for e-auction was issued by the 1.t respondent in January, 20 19. The sale conducted in favour of the petitioner by the 1st respondent is legal and valid, which is not challenged by the 2"4 respondent before any forum, as such, the same is binding on all the parties.

6.

Heard Sri Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Keshava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the lst respondent and Sri Kowturi Pawan Kumar, learned counsel or the 2"d respondent. 7.

Learned counsei for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition submits that pursuant to issuance of notice under Rule 8(6) of the Enforcement Rules, 2002, the 2"d respondent does not possess any right under the Act of 2002 to claim redemption of the property. He submits that when the petitioner, who is auction purchaser paid full sale consideration, the impugned order of the, Tribunal directing the 1st respondent to accept fu11 amount from the 2.d respondent, after the 2"0 respondent lost right of redemption, is illegal and erroneous. He also submits that S.A.No.134 of 2Ol9 filed by the 2"d respondent against e-

auction notice dated 01.04.2019 has become infructuous, since the sale could not take place. He also submits that the 2"d respondent has also not complied with the interim order dated 22.04.2019, wherein the 2"d respondent was directed to deposit 3Oo/o of the outstanding amount, as such, the 1st respondent again issued paper publication on 1O.O7.2019 lixing the date of auction on 30.07.2019 and that there is no prospective purchaser for the subject property. He submits that the 1st respondent again issued paper publication on 10.09.2019 for selling the property through private treaty, as such, granting of impugned order dated 25.11.2019 by the Tribunal, is impugned in the writ petition. He submits that even though the 2nd respondent has knowledge about the paper publication on lO.O9 .2019 , he has not come forward to pay the balance loan amount to the 1st respondent. He also submits that the 2"d respondent has also not raised any specific plea regarding violation of any provisions of the Act of 2OO2 in concluding the sale except making omnibus allegations. B.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the 1st respondent never agreed before the Tribunal for receiving entire amount as by that time, the 1"t respondent received entire sale consideration from the petitioner, in pursuant to sale under private treaty, but the Tribunal erroneously recorded the facts while granting order dated 25.11.2019. He also submits that aggrieved by the said order, the 1"t respondent also preferred an appeal before the DRAT, Calcutta and same is pending. He contended that the 2"d respondent is dragging on the matter for payment of loan amount and that in spite of auction being conducted twice, there is no prospective purchaser, as such, the 1.t respondent issued paper publication for sale of the subject property through private treaty. Since the petitioner

has come forward for purchasing the subject property for valid consideration, the sale was concluded in his favour, as he paid entire sale consideration, as such, the 2"d respondent has lost the right o[ redemption. He also submits that the 2nd respondent has not come forward to pay the amount in pursuance to Section 13(2) and 13(a) of the Act of 2OO2 and before publication of notice thrice under Section 8(6) of the Act, as such, the impugned order in the writ petition passed by the Tribunal is iliegal.

9.

Learned counsel for the 2"d respondent, while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit, submits that no notice was issued as per Rule B(5) of the Rules giving 30 days time for payment of the loan amount. He submits that even though the 2nd respondent was ready and willing to pay the entire amount, but the lst respondent refused to receive the same. He also submits that the S.A.No. 134 of 2019 is pending, neither the petitioner nor the 1"t respondent inlormed about the confirmation of sale through private treaty before the Tribunal though the petitioner was ready to pay Rs.50 lakhs by 31.10.2019 and another Rs.30 lakhs by 18.01.2020, as such, no interference is called for with the impugned order. He submits that the lst respondent under-valued the subject property and in collusion with the petitioner, sold the same through private treaty, which is illegal.

10. In view of rival contentions of the parties, the point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned order dated 25.1I.2019 in S.A.No.134 of 2Ol9 permitting the 2"d respondent to pay entire auction amount? I 1. It is an admitted Iact that the 2"d respondent being the principal borrower and his wife being the co-borrower, obtained loan to a tune of

Rs. 1,10,00,000/- from the lst respondent. Since the 2"d respondent defaulted in making payment of loan amounts, his account was declared as NPA. In order to recover the loan amount, the 1st respondent intends to dispose of the same through public auction, got issued paper publication notice dated O1.O4.2019 under Section 13(4)/ 14 of the Act of 2OO2, fixing the date of auction as 23.04 .2019 . Challenging the said auction notice, the 2"d respondent preferred S.A No.134 of 2Ol9 before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal granted interim order on 22.04.2019. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"The issues raised by the petitioner would be dealt with upon hling counter and documents by the Respondent Bank. However, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the sale proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank against the petitioner schedule property under the eAuction Sale notice dated 01.04.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent Bank may go ahead with the auction of the petition schedule property as scheduled on 23.04.2019 but not to confirm the same in favour of the highest bidder in the auction sale of the petition schedule property in pursuance of the e-Auction Sale Notice dated 0i.04.

2019 subject to the petitioner depositing 30% of the outstanding dues as claimed in the Sale Notice in two instalments-1"t installment of 15% within one week from the date of this order and 2nd installment of 15% within two weeks thereafter directly with the Respondent Bank. In case of failure of compliance of any of the above conditions by the petitioner, the interim stay shall stands vacated and the Bank is at liberty to confirm the sale in favour of the highest bidder in respect of the schedule property and the said sale shall be subject to the result of the S.A."

12. A perusal of the aforesaid order goes to show that the Tribunal granted interim stay, on condition of the 2"d respondent paying 30% of the outstanding dues within three weeks, in two installments of 15%o each. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the 2"d respondent has not complied with the said conditional interim order, as such, the stay got automatically vacated after a period of three weeks from 22.O4.2019. Even according to the 2nd respondent, he has categorically admitted in his counter that due to personal problems, he could not comply with the conditional stay order. Thereafter, the 1"t respondent again issued paper publication on and 10.07.2019 for sale of the subject property fixing the date of auction as 30.07.2019, but

l0 there were no prospective bidders forthcoming for the subject property. As such, the 1st respondent got issued hnal notice on 10.09.2019 for sale of the subject property through private treaty. The petitioner consulted the lst respondent and offered to purchase the subject property through private treaty for an amount of Rs.1,44,009/- towards total sale consideration, which was confirmed by the 1"t respondent vide communication dated 26.O9.2019 to the petitioner. i3.

Now, it is to be seen whether the 2"d respondent has got knowledge about issuance of paper publication dated 10.09.2019 for sale of subject property through private treaty. It is the specific contention of the lst respondent that they have issued notice of sale through private treaty on 10.09.2019 under Rule 8(6) ol the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2"d respondent only an omnibus denial is made with regard to non receipt of notice dated 10.09.2019. It is pertinent to note here that after issuance of notice of sale dated O1.O4.2O19, the 1st respondent had also issued notices of sale on several occasions including the notice dated 1O.O7.2019 fixing the date of auction as 30.07.2019. As there were no bidders, the auction could not be conducted, as such, the notice of sale dated lO.O7 .

2019 as well as previous notice dated 01.O4.2O19 have become infructuous. That apart, the 2"d respondent also failed to comply with the conditional stay order granted on 22.04.2019 in S.A.No. 134 of 2019 and admittedly, no order of the Tribunal is brought to the notice of this Court about the extension of time for complying the conditional order dated 22.04.2019, as such, it is deemed that the 2nd respondent failed iomply the said conditional order. In order to realize the debt, the 1st respondent has issued notice of sale through private treaty on 1O.O9.

l1 responded and purchased the same, after complying with the provisions of the Act of 2OO2. Having knowledge about the issuance of notice of sale through private treaty, the 2nd respondent kept quite and not challenged the same till date. Though the sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner, the 2"d respondent neither chose to challenge the said sale nor the sale notice dated 10.09.2019. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 25.11.2O19 has become infructuous, as the sale in respect of the subject property has been confirmed in favour of the petitioner on 26.09 .2019 and petitioner also paid entire sale consideration by 18.10.2019.

14.

The 2"d respondent cannot get any relief against sale through private treaty concluded between the petitioner and the 1"t respondent, as the same was independent of the earlier sale notification issued by the 1.t respondent, which is not the impugned in pending S.A before the Tribunal. The impugned order itself is beyond the scope of main S.A. The counter affidavit filed by the 2"d respondent is as vague as it can be. The lst respondent has followed the procedure in conducting action in terms of Rule 8(6) of the Rules. The 2nd respondent could not point out any violation of the provisions of the Act of 2OO2 and the Rules made thereunder, as such, the question of the Tribunal passing the impugned order does not arise.

Even otherwise, the 2"d respondent cannot redeem the mortgaged property as notice under Rule 8(6) issued thrice and the last one being 10.09.2019 under private treaty. The 2"d respondent could have redeemed the subject property by paying entire amount on or before the date of notice of private treaty, i.e., 10.09.2019, but not afier publication of auction notice through private treaty.

creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets,- (i) the secured assets shall r.tot be transfened by way of lease assignment or sale by the secured creditor; and (ii) in case, any step has been taken by the secured creditor for transfer by way oflease or assignment or sale of the assets before tendering ofsuch amount under this sub-section, no fufther step shall be taken by such secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of such secured assets.] 1 5. The aforesaid provision is substituted by the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act,2076 $4 of 20161 dated 16.08.2O16, with effect from 01.09.2016 vide S.0.2831(E), dated 01.O9.2016. Prior to substitution, sub-section (B) read as under:

"(8). If the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him are tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the secured asset shal1 not be sold or transferred by the secured creditor, and no further step sha11 be taken by him for transfer or sale of the secured asset."

16. Admittedly, the sale notification was issued on 10.09.2O19 and the impugned order was passed on 25.11.2019 and by that date, the petitioner has paid entire sale consideration to the 1"t respondent and concluded the sale transaction through private treaty. In terms of the amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the Act, the right of redemption given to the borrower/2nd respondent would expire upon publication of such notice. Rule 8(6) of the Rules of 2002, stipulates that the thirty day notice period mentioned therein is for the purpose of enabling the borrower to redeem his property. Significantly, this provision remains unaltered. Statutory notice period of thirty days is sacrosanct and deviation therelrom would curtail the statutory right of redemption available to the borrower. (see Mathew Varghese v. M.Amritha Kumarr) But, in the instant case, the 30 days notice has expired by 10.10.2019, i.e., from the date of issuance of notice I lzot+1 s scc oto

l3 through private treaty on 10.09.2019. In view ol the aforesaid amended provision, the right of redemption of the property by the 2nd respondent is belore the date of publication of notice under private treaty, but not after publication of the same. In view of above, the 2"d respondent cannot have right of redemption of the subject property. As already discussed supra, the 2nd respondent failed to clear the dues to the lst respondent, on three occasions and failed to redeem the property, as such, the impugned order is in violation of Section 13(8) of the Act ol 2002.

17. Since the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is patently illegal and against the provisions of Section 13(8) of the Act and beyond the scope of S.A, the same is liable to be quashed. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others [(2O10) 8 Supreme Court Cases 11O1, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows: "46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/ instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and Iegal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies / insti tution s, which (sic will) ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters."

The principle and analos/ laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment also applies to the Tribunals.

18. Existence of alternate remedy is not a bar in entertaining the Writ Petition by this Court. ln whirlpool corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, togga\ escc rr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "15. Under Afilcle 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But tlie High Court has imposed upon itself ceftain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the

Fundamental fughts or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of fbrensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era ol the constitutional law as they still hold the field." In view of above facts and circumstances, writ petition is liable to be allowed and accordingly, the same is allowed setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 25.l),.2019, by directing the 1"t respondent to register the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner. There shail be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stands closed.

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Hon'ble Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, The Chief Justice on this Thursday' The Third day of December, Two Thousand and Twenty.

Sd/. K. S ESHI ASSISTANT RE TRAR //TRUE COPY'

SECTI OFFICER To,

1. Maoma Fincoro Limited, Mandhana Towers, Room No. 301-302, 3rd Floor. DK Roid, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500016 Also at. Development House, 24 Park Street, Kolkata - 700016

2. One CC to Sri. Pasham Mohith, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri. S. Keshava Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri. KoMuri Pawan Kumar, Advocate (OPUC)

5. Two,,CD Copies.

PM c\7

HIGH COURT DATED:0311212020 rA o il ir Y

ORDER

o z O 0 t)ECm WP.No.28813 of 2019 * * p j-.Tc Allowing the WP Without costs.

\s^J.

C @lt ei\ )t \o