Mohd. Abdullah Khan, Hyd v. Person Incharge, The Hyd Co-Op Urban Bank Ltd., And 7 Others

i HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA A\D THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI RIT APPEAL : 168 1681 I 1696 .1701,1 711.171 2ANO1 714 0F WA No: 1 680 of 20 '17 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the I OrOer OateO ii.Og.ZOll passed in WP No 8910/2007 on the file of the High Court' I Between:

N,4ohd.AbdullahKhan,sonoflvlohdBaquerKhan'.Proprietor'M/sNew Eli,it*"iilliibp r.r,j.s-alo0zlr, Abids' Hvde'adad, resident of 16-2-838' Baquer Bagh, Saidabad, HYderabad.

...PETITIONERYAPPELLANT AND 1 . The Hvderabad Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd ' at '17-3-486' Pari Mahal' i;i.;iJffi, ;;;";;#i,;;tv ii" p"'son lncharse' Manoj Kumar' s/o Anjaiah'

2. The Hvderabad Cooperative Credit Society Limited" Represented bv its Presid'ent, Sved Hussain ng.l'S;ol Sy;'6 lga, aget about z0 yeais' resident of briirr/l"tlr, irtrtpura, uvo"eranao (Reipond-entsArVrit Petitioners)

3. A.P. Cooperative Tribunal,, Hyderabad, Represented by Chairman' 4 The deoutv Reqistrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer" Charminal O/o Division' P.S. Niqai. Ma-sabtank, HYderabad

5. Ahmed Bin Abdullah, S/o Abdullah Bin Ahmed No 22-6-270' Machili Kaman' Hyderabad.

6. Sved Viquaruddin, S/o Syed Hameeduddin, Aged about 27 Years' R/o 1330' Edi Blzar, HYderabad.

7. Sved lmranuddin, S/o Syed Hameeduddin, aged about 25 years' R/o 1330' Edi Bizar, Hyderabad.

SVedlrfanuddir.s/oSyedHameeduddin'agedabout22yearc'R/c1330,Edi Bazar. Hyderal ad ,..RESPON DE NTS/RESPONDE NTS I AM NO t 2017 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f rled rn s rpport ot tie p'etiiion" tne firgfr Court. mav be ple 3sed to stay all f urther oroceeding. 't ou,.,untJi tii"ltol' a't6'o zztstzo" i made in wP'No 8910 ot iooz penoing Jis6 csal of the above appeal' Counsel for the ApJ ellant:SRl' M A K MUKHEED Counsel for the Rer Pondent Nos' 1 & 2: GP FOR COoPERATION Counsel for the Re' pondent Nos' 3 & 4: M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Re ;pondent Nos' 5 to 8: NONE APPEARED WA NO: 1681 OF 2 r't7 Writ Appeal t nder clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed dated zz-os-i61i i;'W P. \o. 12014 of 2007 on the file of the High Court' Between:

Mohd. Abdr llah Khan, Son of Mohd' Baquer Khan' Proprieto-r' ^M/s New Footwear. S rop t'to.s-alod'ili luiol' uvo"'"bad' resident of 16-2-838' Baquer Bagh, Saida )ail, Hyderabad'

...APPELLANT AND

1. Ahmed Bin \bdullah' S/o. Abdullah Bin Ahmed pUo' 22-6-270' N'4achili Kaman' I Hyderabad.

2. Syed Viqua uddin S/o Syed Hameeduddin" R/o 1330 Edi Bazar ' Hyderabad' 3, Syed lmrar rddin S/o Syed Hameeduddin, FVo 1330' Edi Baza'' Hyderabad'

4. Sved lrfant jdin S/o Syed Hameeduddin,' PJo 1330' Edi BSEat ' Hyderabad - id;;;;il ,G , t" i ;'* r.ep bvin"nbdA Holder Ahmed Bin Abdullah i e 1st hesdonder I herein ) (RespondentsMrit Petrtroners)

5. The Hvder bad Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd' at 17'3-486".Pari lvlahal " i;i,lii;; nvo"ii65o *p oiiiJP;d"; tninarsu' Manoj Kunar' s/o Anjaiah

6. The Divisir nal Cooperative Officer, Charminal Division' P S Nagar" l\4asabtank' Hyderabar .

7. A.P. Coop )rative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Represented by' Chairman' Hyderabad

8. Wahaz Mi za, S/o. Mahmood Mirza, resident of 5-9'22617 -8 " Chirag All Lane' Abids, HYt erabad.

...RESPONDE NTS/RESPONOENTS P. NO: 32( i oF 2017 Petition L lder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in tne atioavit-fitei in support of the petition, the High Court may br: pleased to stay all

l ,arther proceedings in pursuance of the order daled 221912017 made in W'P' No' 12014 ol 2OO7 pending disposal of the above appeal' lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 ?Pp-oll Advocate receiver to take over the property admeasuring to an extent of 6000 sFT comprisingofcellarground,firstfloorsinH.No'5.6.606and5.8.607situatedat Abids, Hyderabad.

Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. M A K MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI' D MADHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: SRl. K JAGADISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 & 8: NONE APPEARED WANO: 1682 OF 2017 WritAppealunderclaUse,lsoftheLetterSPatentpreferredagainsttheorder daled .22.09 .i617 passed in WPNo.1 201 5/2007 on lhe file of the High Court'

.l Between:

Mohd. Abr ullah Khan, Son of l\4ohd. Baquer Khan, Proprietor, l\4/s.New Footwear, ;hop No.5-8-607/1, Abids, Hyderabad, resident ol 16-2-838, Baquer Bagh, Said rbad, Hyderabad.

.,.APPELLANT/RESPO N DE NT NO. 1 AND 1 , Ahmed Bin Abdullah, S/o Abdullah Bin Ahmed No 22-6-270,l,4achrli Kaman, Hyderabad

2. Syed Viqut ruddin, S/o Syed Hameeduddin, Aged about 27 Years, Fyo 1330, Edi Bazar, Hyd )rabad.

3. Syed lmrar uddin, S/o Syed Hameeduddin, aged about 25 years, R/o 1330, Edi Bazar, Hyc lrabad.

4. Syed lrfanr ddin, S/o S/o Syed Hameeduddin, aged about 22 yea$, R/o 1330, Edi Bazar, lyderabad. (Respondents 2lo 4arc rep by their GPA Holder Ahmed Bin Abdull; h i,e 1st Respondent herein) (RESPONDENTS^,\/RIT PETITIONERS)

5. The Hyder rbad Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., at 17-3-486, Pari Mahal, Yakutpura Hyderabad rep. by its Person lncharge, l\,4anoj Kumar, S/o Anjaiah.

6. A.P. Coop ,rative Tribunal, Hyderabad, Represented by Chairman.

7. The Coopr rative Sub Registrar/Arbitrator,, O/o Divisional Cooperative Officer, Charminar Division, P.S. Nagar, Masabtank, Hyderabad.

8. Wahaz Mir ua,, son of Mahmood Mirza, resident of 5-9-22617-8, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hy( erabad, RESPONDENI'S/R:SPONDENTS WAMP. NO: 320 ; OF 2017 Petition u rder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed jn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay atl further proceedi rgs in pursuance of the order dated 221912A17 made in W.P.No. 12015 of 2007 p :nding disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant:SRl, M A K MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRl. D MADHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: SRl, K JAGADISHWAR REDDY counsel for the Respondent No. 7: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 8: NONE APPEARED WA NO '1695 0:2017 Writ App( al under clause '15 of the Letters patent Appeal prefe.red against the order dated.22.C ).2017 passed in WpNo.9084/2007 on the fite of the High Court. Between:

fi4ohd. A )dullah. Khan, ,qon of [,4ohd. Baquer Khan. proprietor, l\,{/s.New Footwe^ar Shop No5-8-607/1, Abids, Hyderabad, resident of if;_Z-aaa. aJquei Bagh, Sa iabad, Hyderabad ..,APPELLANT

AND

1. The Hvderabad Cooperatrve Urban Bank Ltd ' at 17-3-486' Parid t\ilbhal' Yakutpura. Hvderabad '"p oi]it ij"lIo" inJejr.g;'}' Manoi Kumar' s/o Aniaiah'

2. The Hvderabad Cooperative Credit Society Limited Represented bv its ' ;i:;ll,ili:?:t,th::rt [T;.o:! "i-'"'.i1fii*,#fi?*'83,?,1J.'."si'" res dent or

3. A.P. Cooperative Tribunal' Hyderabad' Represented by Chairman' 4 The Cooperative Sub Reglstrar/Arbitrator' Oio Divisional Cooperative Officer' - c;;;;5iilision, p.s -Nasar' Masabtank' Hvderabad

5. Wahaz Mirza, son N'4ahmood N'4irza' resident of 5-g-226t7 -B' Chirag Ali Lane' Abids, HYderabad.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS WAMP. NO: 3238 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ot tne pelition' tne Hign Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding, in p,"'"*JI;i;; ";;'

d'ited z2tgtzott made in w P'No 9084 I oi )ooz penaing irsposat of the above appeal' Counsel for the Appellant:SRl' M A K MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent Nos l & 2: M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No 3: SRI' K JAGAOISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No 4: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No 5: NONE APPEARED WA NO: 1696 OF 2017 Writ Appeal under clause '15 of the Letters Patent.App-eal preferred against the oro", iaiui'i5.i:s.iott passeo in fu F No esr t lzooz on the file of lhe Hish Court' Between:

Khan. Son of Mohd. Baquer Khan' ProprletoJ' -lvl/s New *ililii-odz]i. inioi, Hvoe'atiao, resident of 16-2'838' Baquer Mohd. Abdullah Foolwear, ShoP Bagh, Saidabad, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND 1 The Hvderabad Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd' at 17-3-486'.Pari l\'4ahal' i';iJtfi;;"fii"iJ65i *p oiii'-i;"ii"" ln"nJ's"' r/anoi Kumar' s/o Anjaiah 2,TheHVderabadCooperativeCreditSocietyLimited,,Representedbvits 'gii:g!'l#vx*,i::1['1ffi ",'-'"'.'o1[%*,ffi i*#iJ:"".T*residentor

3. A.P. Cooperative Tribunal' Hyderabad' Represented by Chairman

4. The deputy Registrar/ Divisional Cooperative Officer" Charminal Division' Hyderabad.

5. Ahmed Bin Abdullah, S/o Abdullah Bin Ahmed Rlo 22-6-270 ' lrilachili Kaman' Hyderabad.

s/o sved Hameeduddin' Ased about 27 Years' R/o 1330' Edi Sved lmranuddi r',S/o Syed Hameeduddin' aged about 25 years' RiQ 1330' Edi BfX,Yirys:"i3]) Sved lrfanuddir S/o S/o Syed Hameeduddin' aged about 22 years' PJo '1330' Blzar, HYderao 'o'

Ebi Bazar' Hyd' raoau "RESPoNDENTS/RESPoNDENTS wAMP No: 3239 oF : r-z '*^ 'ir'' 'nrslances stated in the *. *'' ", * t " "t:,1 i "i ]n,.iJ * Ui":] fi ,#i't'-::' ll' ";:f i: U I :l';'l; ::""".T1 :ni:'?:11 I "'1"'" "

o o"'

counsel for the Ap )ellant:sRl' M A K MUKHEED Counsel for the RG spondent Nos' 1 & 2: M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the R( spondent No 3: SRI' K JAGADISHWAR REDDY counsel for the R |spondent No' 4: GP FOR cooPERATloN Counsel for the R 3spondent Nos' 5 to 8: NONE APPEARED wA No: 1701 oF 2-9'1-l ' -"^'^ oatent Aooeal preferred against the writ Appez vld-"l"li:;:"f i/;ffi.tfiEi"ri:fllll5 "l'il" i'nn "";n order dated 22 0€ 2017 Pass Between:

"='-=Hfr"dliH{u!"":'cftxl"'Hl?i;'""'3Blil'5i'3}''"i"%"j3'15'ya';xy' ..PETITIONERAPPELLANT ^- l rrr*,, f Biffi :s8s',.11liy liiB"?3il il:;"!i, ^i= [*' "'l 113 l"i "' "

n 'ij#*i,*il]]T:}jil'[;,:;f{{:#*:+}H?,'."G'"""'%tlr'r'"""*"

3. AP. Cc )perative Tribunal' Hyderabad' Represented by Chairman' , ;l3 R:;:,1[,:$ilgxiiil*[::"*'."" "1"

^^ charminar0/0 Division'

5. Ahmec Bin Abdullah' Sto AOO'rtan Bin Ahmed Rlo 22-6'270 Machili Kaman' Hydert bad'

^^od arrout 27 Yea.s. Rio 1330' Edi 6 Sved \ iquaruddin- S/o Syed Hameeduddin' Aged abou ; ::::' ::1"J::::''" Sved Hameeduddin' ased about 25 vears' R/o 1330' Edi i ;ffi *t'i*}r**oSvedHameeduoo'l:,fl n"$bo'tB','*"t"'fl E#3J31"i* I t

WAMP. NO:

244 0F 2A17 J C praying that in the circumstances stated in Petition under Section 151 CP ;,",I"" *1":':1ff '#JJ",1'#'l::? il ttre affidavit filed in support of the pet {udher oroceedings in Pursuance f the above appeal rii pr.ro gb++lzooz, pendrng disoosal o Counsel for the Appellant:SRl' T BALA MOHAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos' 1 & 2: M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No 3: SRI K JAGADISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No' 4: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos 5 to 8: NONE APPEARED WAN Ot 17'11 OF 2017 ed dated Wrlt Aopeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent' agains-t the order pass ,r-on-ibi'rll'w olNo rzoro or'iooz on the rile orthe Hish court Between:

y;ffi l:l{fl :, tll1i.,'33i, 1!#11'-,'33?i?l'nne:;' ?'i|;:""-"J,uyA:H} Bagh. saidabad Hyderaba.

...APPELLANT AND '1 . Ahmed Bin Abdullah, S/o Abdullah Bin Ahmed' Rlo' 22-6-270' N'4achili Kaman' Hyderabad.

2. Syed Vlquaruddin S/o Syed Hameeduddin' R/o 1330' Edi Bazar' Hyderabad

3. Syed lmranuddin S/o Syed Hameeduddin' R/o 1330' Edi Bazar' Hyderabad 4 syed rrranuddi1:,"; :I"9^IahTif"1y'"'# Ei:"l"ttf^5:t"f,'"'o#Ifl51",?,il,.* lRespondents 2 tg 4 ?:" le-X;Jentlrrr,vrit'p"iitiJn"r.r iles[ondent herein ) (Respc

5. The Hvderabad Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd at 17-3-486" Pari l\'4ahal' Yakutpura. Hvderaoao r."r.l liiit'ij"1li'"^ in"r'"ig"' tvlanoi Kumar' sio Anjaiah A.P. Cooperative Tribunal'.Hyderabad Represented by Chairman' o &'d#i;;H;-.ponoent t'tci 4 in writ Petition) The Coooerative Sub Registrar/Arbitrator' O/o Divisional' Cooperative Officer' cnZr".IX5ioi"i'.ti-e s. tiagar' uasabtank Hvderabad' iRLH;;;;;r'R;fonoent NIo 3 in writ Petition) Wahaz Mlrza, son of Mahmood Mlrza' resident of 5-9-22617-8" Chirag All Lane' Abids, HYderabad.

..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS WAMP NO 3277 0 20 7 PetitionunderSectionlslCPcprayingthatinthe.circumstancesstatedin the affidav* filed in support ot ri" o",iioni,nt fiign court-ma-u he oreased to stay all rurther proceedins. 'n p""''1i""";i';; ;;;t;;"rcd 22gio17 made in w P No ,r;;ri i ;il;;;idins oisposat or the above appeal Counsel for the Appellant:SR| M A K MUKHEED

Counsel forthe Re ipondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI D MADHAVA RAo Counsel forthe Re ipondent No. 6: SRl. K. JAGADISHWAR REDDY ' Counsel for the Re ipondent No. 7: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Re ;pondent Nos. 5 & 8: NONE APPEARED ANO 12 0F t17 Writ Appeal tnder clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order d;ted.i2.09.2 )17 passed in WPNo.9047/2007 on the file of the High Court Between:

l\4ohd Abdu ah Khan, Son of Mohd Baquer Khan' Proprie-tor' -lV/s'New F";i;";;,5 rop No.s-d-oozlt, Abids, Hvderabad, resident of 16-2-838' Baquer Bagh, Saida ad, Hyderabad ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND ad CooDerative Urban bank Ltd. at 17-3-486 Pari lvlahal, yOeraOid rep. by its Persor lncharge, NIanoj Kumar' s/l An1alan'

1. The Hyderat Yakutpura, I

2. The Hyderal President, S Pari Mahal,

3. A.P. Coopet

4. The Cooper Charminal t ad Coooerative Credit Society Limited. Represented b7 its ii Hi,ii"in ngr, Son of Syetl Aga. aged about 70 vears residenl of 'akutpura. Hydlrabad, (Respondents,^/Vril Petitioners) ttive Tribunal, Hyderabad, Represented by Chairman' rtive Sub Reqistrar/Arbitrator, O/o Divisional Cooperative Officer' vision, P.S. llagar, lVasabtank Hyderabad r, son of Mahmood Mirza, resident of 5-9-22617-B' Chirag Ali Lane, 'abad.

5. Wahaz Miz Abids, Hyde ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS WAMP. NO: 3279 )F 2017 Petitionun(erSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstances,statedinthe attidavit fiieO in s rpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedinp j in pursuan"e of the order daled 221912A17 madr-'in W'P No' 9047 of 2007 pending d spbsal of the above appeal Counsel for the A ppellant:SRl. M A K MUKHEED Counsel for the F espondent Nos. 'l & 2: M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the F espondent No' 3: SRl. K JAGADISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the F espondent No. 4: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the t espondent No. 5: NONE APPEARED WRIT APPEAL N ): 1714 OF 2017 Writ Appe€ under clause 1 5 of the Letters Patent appeal preferred against the order dt.22-09-20 7 passed in WP.No.9045 of 2007 on the file of the High Court' Between:

Khan. Son of [/]ohd. Baquer Khan' ProPrietor' -M/s New Nilblii-oo'/i. Itiai, rivo""u"o' resident or 16-2-83E' Baquer N4ohd, Abdullah Footwear, ShoP Bagh, Saidabad, Hyderabad ,,.PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND 1 The Hvderabad Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd' et 17-3.-486',Pari Mahal' Yakutiura. Hvderaoad *p b;ii;;";;;; rn"r.luigu' Mano1 Kumar' Aniaiah

2. The Hyderabad Cooperatrve Credit Society Limited" Represented by its - p;".; ;;;i S yed H u s s a i n. As ?.".# ";r_."r."rt f,ii;ml ;*ll ;l#a rs, re si d e nt or Pad lr/ahal, Yakutpura, Hyde

3. A.P. Cooperative Tribunal,, Hyderabad' Represented by Chairman

4. The Cooperative Sub RegistrariArbitrator" o/o,Divisional Cooperative Officer' ' ci"rt".i"5ip s Nagar, lvlasabtank' Hyderabad'

5. Wahaz Mirza,, son of lvlahmood l\'4ifta' resident of 5-9-22617 -B ' Chirag Ali Lane' Abids, HYderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS WAM P.NO:3? 60F 2017 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPcpraying.lhatlnthec.ircumstancesstatedinihe affidavit filed in support 't tne piitiJi i(e iign court may he oleased to stay all funher Droceedinn, ,n o"t"n"Jli'lX" "ii"r'0"'i"J iztgtzot't made in w P'No 9045 ;i ;b;/o;;;i"s iisposar or the above appeal Counsel for the Appellant:SRl' M A K MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 1 & 2: M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No 3: SRI K JAGADISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No' 4: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No' 5: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following:

THE HON'B. E THE CHIEF JUSTICE S,q.TISH HANDRA c SHARM,\ AND T IE HON'BLE SRI JUSUCE N.IUI{AB4!4JI W.A.No.168( L682 r69S 1.696 1701 17 LL 77 12 and t7 4 of 2O1.

COMM ON JUI GMENT: lPerthe Ho 'ble the t:Ltiel Jrsrtr''tarrsh Ch'in'lru shrl'alr' Regarr being had to the controversy invoh'ed in thc aloresaid c Lses, they were hearcl together end atrt: btrit-tg decided by r common judgment'

The fz :ts of W.A.No,1680 ol 2017 are reprocluce c1 :rs under':

W.A.| o,1680 of 2017 is arisrng out of an o:der passecl in r /.P.No.8910 ol 200'/ thich tas decidecl bt' the lealned Si -rgle Judge bY a common order Passed on '22.Og.2O1 in W P Nos.89 10, E9 11 9044, 9045 9(147' !)084. 120t4. 12015 ancl 12016 ol'2007 'lhr: l:rr:ts of \\'.ir.No.B9 0 r.-r i 2OO7 rcveal Lhal the i-t'spi.rtlclelll \o' 1 herein/ tl-r< H1'derabad Cooperative Urban Bank Linlited (hereinaftt r referred to as. the Bank) incorporated under the provi ;ions of the Andhra Pradesh C lc pc rrrtive Societies Act, 1962, granted financial assistance to Mohd. Al dullah I{han, rvho is the appella:rt in the present u,'rt appcal and r'l'h o was one of the respon(lents in the u,'rt petition prei:rr-ecl b1' the Bar-lk and the Hl,deraba 1 Coopelative Credir Sot ir'l-r' l'imited Unclispr-rf cllf'. the loan iutLL.'t-ttll \\ ils nol le paic trv Nloird'

I Abdullah Khan and in those circumstances, proceedings were initiated under Section 61 oi the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. An award was passed on 30.03.2002 and pursuant to the award, execution petition was preferred under Section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act read with Rule 52 of the Rules framed thereunder. The undisputed facts of the case further reveal that the appeal was preferred before the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal) and finally the Tribunal has allowed the appeal by judgment dated 09.03.2007. In all the cases, the appeals were allowed in favour of the borrowers.

It is noteworthy to mention that the property rvas sold, sa,le certificates were granted in the matter and the Bank thereafter preferred writ petitions challenging the' order dated 09.03.2007 passed by the Tribunal. The writ petitions were also liled bir the successive bidders in whose favour sale was confirmed and finally the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and set aside the award passed by the Tribunal dated 09.03.2007.

). Appl1,'ing the .rbov( principles. rf th,:

is allorved to raise the above relerrecl -8 borrclq,e pleas and seek to escape liabilitv to pa, o the Bank $,hich irc' admitted before the r, it u'ould bL" a travqsty ol justice anc it tech nice money arbitratr re permitted. The Tribunal lost sight ol this inciple oI justice and grantcd relief to the c an not basis p by allowing his appeals accepling the hlrper borrowe pleas rars, d lrr hirtt. \\ l]1l Ir h,r\(' n,r rnr -it. For thc ulirrc'saicl r(asor'rs, all tirc V''nL are allou'edt orclcrs dt.09 O3-1007 i:r tcchnir:a Pe tition r s.86, 87, 88 of 2002 as rrell ris C.T.A.\os.89, C,T,A. Nt '1 ol 2006 arc sct itsi[1c: Lirc strle coniirrratio:r 90 and :.26-09-2O05 in E.P.Nr-rs.8. 9 i.Lncl lt, o:200.r orclcis c ol rhe )r . Registrar,'Dir isioi',irl Cool)( rati\,- Olficcr , arr Diirsrun in li,rorr- ,i tlrt prtrt onr'rs j r Charmir 2014, 12015 and 12016 ol 2007 rirc rlcclare.i W. P. No.

.rncl cnlbrccrrblr.; tll( sirl( r't'ttilitirtts tssue<1 L.r petitioncrs ptlr'sLrirlt' L(, tltc saial t,tdtrs ar,' Iid; ancl thev itrc enl lLle(l to dcLivcrl' c,l its valid t hc sali( lrelcl vi rn ol the propertv m,inti()ned ttrerein from the or other persons irr possessrr.rrr lhcrcof. )lo possess borrou,e COSIS.

. As a sequel, the rrr,sccliancous pctili,.rns 8.

if anr., shall stand closc11."

pending The F:esent appeals have been hled bv the borrowers I efore this Court and the learned counsel appearing fc r the borrowers has straight a\:ay drarvn the attention of -his Court tor,t,ards the judgrnenr clelivered br, ar Full Benc r of this Court in the case of M. Babu Rao and otherr v. Deputy Registrar of Co-oPerative 'Societies/C fficer on Special Duty, Vasavi Co-op. I

I Urban Bank Ltd., Malakpet, Hyderabad and others'' His contention is that in the light of the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court, the action initiated under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act is a nullity and the Tribunal was not having jurisdiction in the matter. He has also argued before this Court that the debt due in the present case was more than Rs. 10.00 lakhs and therefore, the only recourse available to the Ba:rk was to file art application under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v.

Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Limited2 and his contention is that in the light of the a-foresaid judgment also, the Bank could not have invoked the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and the entire action is nuli arld void and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside' On the other harld, le arned counsel appearing for the Bank and the subsequent purchasers have placed reliance upon the judgmerrt delivered in the case of 2005 {4) Ar.

Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd, an il otherss and the contention of the learned Senior Cou nsel appearing in the matter is that in the light of the rforesaid judgment. the action initiated b1' the Cooperativt Society does not wir.rrant an-v intcrl'crettce and the lea ned Single Judge was justified in allowing the u'rit petitio;r. lt has also been argued that in the light of the Judgmr nt delivered by' the Honble Suprerre Court iu the case 01 Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), the questio r of interference by tl-ris Court does noL al ise. It has als r been argued bc'lore this Court thzlt the subsequent judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supr<:me Court in t he case of Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule (supra) wa; a case arising out of Securitisation and Reconstruc jon of Financia-l Assets and Enforcement of Securitv In erest Act, 2OO2, and therefore, the juclgrnent does not he tp the appellant at all.

This ( ourt has carefully gone through the judgn:ent delivered o r the subject by the Full Bench of this Court in M.Babu Rao's case (supla). The Fu1l Bench of rhis Court in pa ragraph 133 of the said judgment has irelcl as under:- '(2007) 6scc:36 IL

On tl're analysis above, we conclude, declare and L.).) hold {a) That rccoverv of r,.ronies (whethcr called a debt, arrears or by any other name) due to a banking institution including a Co-operative Bank is a matter that integrally lalis u'ithin the corc and substantative area of thc legislative field Banking in Entry-45, List-l of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

(b) The above subject matler is therefore excluded lrom rhe State legislative field in Entry-32, List-ll of the Seventh Schedule.

(c) Recovery of monies due to a Co-operative Bank is not a matter that falls within the incidental and ancillary areas of the State legislative lield in Entry-32' List-tl ol the S€venth Schedule.

(d) A Co-operative Bank as defined in Section 5(cci) of the Banking Rcgulation Act, 1949 (as amended bv Act 23 of 1965) is a Bank ard a Banking compang within the meanit.tg ol Section 2(d) and (e) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

(e) A Tribunal constitutecl under the provisions of the Recovery ol Dcbts due to Banks and Financial lnstitutions Act, 1993 has exclusive jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from a Co-operative bank for recovery of dellts due to such bank, subject to the pecuniary limits of junsdiction specified by or under the said Act' (f) Section 71(1) of the 1964 Act in so far as it expressly confers power on the Registrar to issue a certificate for recovery of arrears of any sum advanced by a financing bank to its members, is beyond the legislative competence of the State.

I (g) Tht nords ctr financilg bartk ir.r Section 71(I) ol the Ar ihrti Pradesh Co operlrltttr Strcjtlics Att. Ic) .):l c\prcs.l) r'esr-Llt in tl)c p:olisions ol tl e Sc--til)n trallsg essirlg the State s legislaLire iimits. l'Ilcse \\'ol(ls bcing cvcrable arc Lltereforc cleclarctl itlvalirl. (lr) 'lir pr()visiolrs ol S(ctiolt irL artcl 7l iulter slik,l1g clottrL oJ l/re Iuord-s itt Secli<-rri 7I(11 ,\rc rcsLricti\r'l\ constr -red as cxclltcling un\ .jLlris(liction, po\!crs or Llutho itv in the Rcgistrar irl rcspcct of rccov(r] oi' clc'bts or arrears clue to a Co-opcrativt' Bank, its rncml ers or others rr hich .rrc trdvanccd, 1e:ll or oti.)e r . ise made oler to srLi h mcmber or pr-'rson, durin 3 the course oi the banking business ol surh Coopere :ive Bank.

{i) (a) No claim, application or other proceedings Ioclged or in;tituted before the Registrar, by a Co-operative Banl for recovery of the amount/debt due from a mem ler or other person pursuant to advances made in t re course of its banhing business could bt ente tained or determined b-y" the Registrar. (ll) l-rY awirrd or orcler passcrl, ccrtilicirte lssLle(i ol. Irl ordL in c'xccution procecdirtgs. bv the llegisl rar r rl anv claim or application ol a Co-opcrative B.tnii. is l)iitr rtl\ iincl itrltr.rrerttl-r rr ilitr-,itl .lrlttsrlictl rtl, tlltll loi'l irnd inope rativc.

0) l)uring the pendency of these writ petitions, by virt Le of various court orders certain amounts havc bee r deposited by some ol the r.l'rit petilioners. A! no poi: t of time these writ petitioners have disputed the Iiat rlity of the amounts already deposited u ith the bar ks in pursuance ol the orders of the Court. Thr refore, we direct that rhe amounts deposited shali be retained by the concerned banks and adiusted ,, agz inst the liabilities, if any, that remain to be

determined pursuant to proceedings initiated by the respective banks in acoorclancc with this.judgment. (k) Ir.r r,,icrr of the declaration in this.iudgmer.r, the respondcnt hanks arc at libertv to proceed \1ith the recovcrl'ol dcbts duc Lo thcn], before thc i)pllropriate forum arrd under thc itpproprialc larv, in accordancc u'ith t his -jttdgmenr.

(1) As the proceedings initiated before the Registrar or any other alrthority under the 1964 Act were bona fide and as considerable timc had been consumed in the litigation in this case also, the respondents-banks shall be entitled to set off the period spent in pursuing their claims before the Registrar or other Fora and before this Court, in computing the period for hling appropriate applications/ claims before the appropriate authority/Tribunal.

In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the judgment of the Full Bench, the action initiated by the Bank certainly deserves to be set aside, as it was only the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which was having jurisdiction in the matter keeping in view the definition of "bank" and "banking company" as defined under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank has argued that in the year 2009, the banking licence was cancelled.

The banking licence was cancelled in the year 2009, whereas action was initiateC by the bank in the year 2OO2 ar,d the matter was adjudicated by the Tribunal in I

the 1'ear 2( r07. Therelore, the subsequent revocation of banking lir ence does not help the respondents 1 and 2 I herein in i ny manner. Much has been argued by the learned Se rior Counsel in the matter placing reliirnce on Greater B, rmbay Coop. Bank Ltd. 's case (supraL) . The Hon'ble St preme Court in the said decision has held as under (par rgraphs 96 and 97):-

96. None ol the contentior.rs of the lezirncd I lor the respondents supporting the judgnrents COUnS, and o ders of the High Courts impugned belore tl'ris ln the question of interpretation clause as v.cll question oI constitutional clause [ormulatr:d Court as thr rbove can bc sttstainecl )7. For thc rcasons statccl rrl.rove ar-:cl aclol:ting rvc and mcar.:inglul intcrpletatiolr ol :he'

he re in pcrvar ons oi the relcvant statutes trrd Enlrics 43. .1.1 provis i of List I ancl lintn, 32 ol l-ist II ol the Seic:rt]r and 4 tle ol thc Const.itution, \ve.lrs\rer the lclclr':rce Sched as Lln er Cooperative banks" established under the ashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (the MCS )60), the Andhra Pradesh CooperatiYe SocieLies Maha Act, 1 Acr, I 164 (the APCS Act, i964), and the Multi-State -ative Societies Act, 2002 (thc MSCS Act, 2O02) Coopt cting the business of banking, do not fall rvithin eaning of "banking company" as defined in transi the r 1 5(c) of the Bankrng Regulation Act, 1949 {the t). Therefore, the provisions of the Recovery of Due to Banks and Financial Institutions /\ct, (the RDB Act) by invoking the doctine ol'

Sectic BR At Debts zration are not applicable to the recovery ol dues incorl cooperatives lrom their members."

b-v', thr L

t \ The Hon'ble Supr eme Court in the case of Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule (supra)' nhich' is the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench' has dealt with the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court and 120 and 142 of the aforesaid judgment read paragraphs as under:

't2O. ln Grcater Bombay Coop Bank Lld v Unitcd Yarn Tex (Pl Ltd. ({2007) 6 SCC 236), the provisions of thc BR A, t. I q49 uere simpll' noted; there uas no in' depth co:lsidcration of thc various provisions and' more particularlv of those contained in Section 56 ol the Act. The main issue was whether lhe court had jurisdiction or Debts Recovery Tribunal to recover the amount from the debtor.

ln that connection' the question of application of RDB Act, 1993 to the coopcrative societies constituted under MSCS Act as well as State Cooperative Acts arose and also whether the State legislature was competent to enact legislation concerning cooperative societies incidentally transacting the business of banking in the light ol List ll Entry 32 The findings were recorded on various aspects wilh which we are unable to agree The discussion on various issues was not in depth' could not be said to be binding We have dealt with the various questions u'ith the help of various decisions o[ this Court. and we find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusions recorcled therein The cooperative banks are doing the banking business, it could not be said to be ar.r incidental activity but main arrd only activitv.

n 142, Reslllrantly, u,e ansu'er llle rclercllce as Llnder: 14r,1.(1)(a) The cooperative banks registered under the State tegislation and multi-State lcvel cooperative soc eties registered under the MSCS Act, 2002 with res )ect to "banking" are govt:rned by rhe legislation reli table to Schedule VII List I Entry 45 of the Co rstitution ol lndia.

14 1.1. (b) The coopcratir,e battks rr"tn bl lirc t '..r' op rative societies rcgisterccl uncl(r thr StaLtc lep sliLtior.r r\'itlr rcspcct tr.) tllc :lspcc:s o1 "ir:orpr.lration, regulatiorl and u'incling up', it.l pa ticular, u'ith respcct to thc nlattcrs ul'tr, h irre or, sicle the purvicu r,,[ Scl.:edu]e Vll List I Entr', 45 'rf th ClonstitLltion ol IndirL. zirc !{overlt,i'd tl tlre s,iid ler isleLtion relatarble Lo Scirtdult VII Lis. ll Entr'" 3:. oi th r Constitution ol lndin.

L,.2,2, 12) The cooperative banks ittvoh'ed in thc a( tivities reiated to banking are covcred u'ithin thc rr:aning of "banking company" defined under Section 5 :) read with Section 56(a) of the Banking Regulation A;t, 1949, which is a legislation relatable to List I E-rtry 45. It governs the aspect ol "banking" of co o >erative banks run by the cooperative societies. Thc c )operative banks cannot carry on an)' activity without c rmpliance of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Art, 1949 and any other legislation appiicable to such k anks relatable to "Banking" in List I Entry 45 and the t Bl Act relatable to Scheduk'Vtl List I Entn llt3 ol'the ( onstitution of India.

42.3. (3)(.r) TI.rc cr,roptrirtlvt bitnks tttrclcr ti)c SLar(' :gislatiort arrcl mLrltr-St.llc cooper; tire tit::i<s a:'r' carrks' uncler Section 2(l)(c) oi Scculitistt ioll rtr:cl leconstruclion ol !-it.t tit't i rttL Assets atl,1 EIIltrrtr-'mctlt ol l('cLrril\ intcrcst Act. 2OU-2 'l hr: rt'r trver, i: itlt

essential part of banking; as such, the recovery procedure prescribed under Section 13 of 'the SARFAESI Act, a legislation relatable to Schedule VII List I Entry 45 to the Constitution of India, is applicable.

142.4. (3)(b) Parliament has legislative competence under Schedule VII List I Entry 45 of the Constitution of India to provide additional procedures for recovery under Sectiorl 13 of the Securitisalion and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securitv Interesl Acl.2O02 with respect to cooperative banks. Thc provisions of Section 2(1)(c)(iv-a), of Seclrritisation an.l Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Dnforcement of Security' Interest Act, 2002, adding "e,t abundarLti cautela", "a multi-State cooperative bank" is not ultra vires as u'ell as the Notification ciatcd 28-l-2003 issucd r,r'it h respcct to tlle cooperatir.'e banks registcred under the State legislation."

The a{oresaid paragraphs make it very clear that the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Banking Reguiation Act' 1949, were simply noted in the case of Greater Bombay Coop' Bank Ltd. (supra) and there was no in-depth consideration of the various provisions and more so, particularly of those contained in Section 56 of the Act of 1949. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'b1e Supreme Court has observed that "we are u.nable to subscnbe to the uiew taken in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) as the prouisions u)ere not correctlA appreciated."

I In vi rw of the judgment delivered by the Constitutio r Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court fn the case of Pan lurang canpati Charrgule (supra), this Court is of the opin: :n that the action initiated under the .{ndhra Pradesh Cr operative Societies Act, 1964, s'as certainlv a nullity and the Bank was having a remedy of filing an application under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcv Act. 1993.

Resul -antly, as the pt oceedings we re u,ithout jurisdictior , this Court is left with no orher choice. except to set asid, the order passed by the learneci Single Judge, Therr fore, the writ appeals are accordingly allowed and the c rdcr passed by tl-re learned Single J udge is hereby set aside.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stan I closed. There shall be no order as to cosr:;. SD/.M.SANTHI VARDHANI JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Person lcharge, Hyderabad Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd ' at 17-3-486' Pari Mahal, Yakr- Pura, Hyderabad 2, ihe Chairmr n, A.P. booperative Tribunal" Hyderabad' i. in" O"prtv legistrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer' Charminal O/o Division' P.S. Nagar, \4asabtank Hyderabad

4. The Divisior al Cooperativ; OffLer, Charmrnal Drvisron' P S Nagar' lvlasabtank' Hvderabad.

One CC ro ,ri.M.A.K. I\,4ukheed Advocate [OPUC] One CC to I/S. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES [OPUC] One CC to iri. D. Madhava Rao, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to iri. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] On" CC to in.T. Bata Mohan Reddy, Advocale [OPU-C] i;; aat t, 'GP for cooperation, Hrgn Court for the State of Telangana [ouT] 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Two CD Cr Pies.

PM SW V

HIGH COURT DATED:31/1212021 COMMON JUDGM :NT WA Nos: 1680, 16 t1,1682' 1695'

1696, 1701, 17'11, 712 & 1714 ot 2017 )$') Allowing the Wl Without costs.

\./ \h