High Court · 2025

..PROFORMA RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to take up the petition by ascertaining jurisdiction under articre 226 of the constitution and to pass an order in nature of writ of mandamus modifying the orderpassed bythe RespondentNo.2 in r. A. 1574 in s. A.4520f 2024dated20- 06- 2025 to set a condition to pay 15 (percent) of the property varue in two equar installments. I l I i I I I I i ! i ! I i t I I I I i i ,t -:,:--+=.€1!, IA NO: 10F 2025 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 interim suspension of the impugned order passed in l A No 1574 of 2025 in S A' No. 452 oI 2C25 dated 20- 06-2025 passed by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above mentioned Writ Petition lA NO: 2 oF 2025 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 interim order restricting the Bank to conflrm the sale of the property' unless the present writ Petition is disPosed' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AMRITANGSHU BHATTACHARYA' FOR SRI KUBER KAUSHIK Counsel forthe Respondent No'1 : SRI V' SETHU MADHAVA RAO' REPRESENTING SMT.V DYUMANI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.185 t 3 oF 202s Mr. Amrrtangshu tshattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr ! Scrhu Madhava Rao. Iearncd.ounscl rcpresenlints Smt. V. Dyum.rrri, learned counsel for th. r.spondenl No. l/Bunk. I "'" "'E ORDER: (t'cr I Ion'bic Justicc Moushumi I:ihattachar].a) l t. The petitioner seeks a mandamus for modification of an order passed bl' the rcspondent No.2-r)eb.s Rccove.'rribunal-t at ,,vacrabaci (Dr?]' I) in I A No' 1574 in s.A.No.452 ot 2A24 datecr 20.o6.2025 riled bru the petitioncr

2. The petitioner (the petitioner No.2 before the DRT I), along q..ith two others, iiled an S.A. ser:king a declaration that the impugned salt_. notice inr:lucling ol 05. I I .2024 and OZ _11 .2024 proposing to hold an Il Auction ol the schedule properties on 29.7r.2024 js illegar, arbitrary and conrrary Lo lz*'r' and [o set asidc tr're proccedings initiated b-tr thc respondent No.I lJnion Uank of India (Bank) under the provisions of The Securitisation and Rer:onstruction of .inancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Inrcrest Act, 2OO2 (SARtrAtrSI Act, 2OO2). 3. The pr:r1,er in the l.A. proccedings initiated by the pehtioner was for sray of thc respondent No. l-Bank b_r. thc sale notice dated 2O.O5.2025 proposing to conclucr an auction ol.the Lhree properties listcd as Sl.Nos. 1, 2 ancl 3 as on I 3.06.2lJ25 filed by rhe I j i i : l I I ' t. ) ,

4. By the impugned dockel order datcd 20 06 2025, the DRT I held that the Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the sale proceedings initiatcd b), th. respondent No. 1-Ilank against Lhe pcLition sche dule propertics uncler the auction salc noticc datcd 2O o5 ' 2025 ancl thc auction u4rich had alrcaLdy becn conducted on 13 06 2025 The DRT-I howcver dirccted thc respondenl No l Bank not 'Lo issue tl'rc Sale Certihcatc in lavour of the highcst bidder in the auction sale of Lhe petition schedule propcrly pursuant to the sale notir:e and the ar-tction conducled sullject to the pctitioner dcpositing [ts'6 Crores in trvo instalmcnts. Thc first instalmcnt of lls.3 crores was to be dcposiled b1' Lhepetrtioncronorbcforc02.o7'2025andthesecondjnstalmentolRs.3 1l Crorestvastobedcpositeclonorbcforel5.oT.2025.-l.hepetitionrris aggrievecl by this ordcr and prays for setting asidc of the samc' 5. Wc have givcn lcarncd counsel appearing lor ihe petLtioncr thrce opportunities to adrlress us on thc maintainabiLity o[ the writ Petiliot-t, which, in our opinion, is the first issue u'hlch the CourL must deal with since the petitioner has an cfficacious alternative statutory remedy utldcr section 18(1) ol tl-Le 2OO2 Act i.c., filing an Appeal to the Appcllale Tribunal against the impugncd ordcr ol thc DRT.

6. Counsel urges that the petitroncr has been denied thc principles of natural justice since the impugned order is dispropo rtionate to the relief sought b1 the pct itioner. 7 . First and foremost, in our vicw breach of the principles of natlrral \ustice and disproportionality art; two different and distinct planks on t t..o I I I ii' :l I i. l 3 which an order may be challenged. As per the decided case law on the subject' including of wrtirrpoor corporation u. Regi-strar of Tiade Marks, Mumbai and othersr followed .by Harbanslat Sahnia And. Anr. us Ind.ian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors.2, the Suprcme Court has laid down the principles on whit'h Arr icre 226 0r thc consrirurirn or rnciia ma1. bc invoked lo cnrerlain a writ petition despite thc existence o[ an efficacious alternative remedy available to the aggrieved ritigant. The breach of the principles of naturar justicc forms one of the three exceptions listed in whirlpoot corporation (supra).

8. Counscl arppearing for the petitioner submils that there has been ar breach of the principlcs of naturar justice. Indeed, the facts are quite to the contrary. It is unciisputed that the petitioner was given a hearing by the DRT-I. Thc impugned order does not record/reflcct that the said order u.as passed in the absence of the peti[ioner. 9- Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any of the other exccptions dccided in the casc law which wourd persllade this court to entcrtain thc Writ petition on the exceptions enumerated in paragraph I5 of Whirtpool Corporalion (supra). 10. The onlv argument maclc by counsel is that the direction on the petitioner for payment of Rs.6 Crores is disproportiona [e to the relief sought for by the petitioner. We do not and cannot accept this argument Admittedly, the petitioner in his I.A. sought in light of the facts before us , (1998) 8 SCC l , (2OO3) 2 SCC 1O7 ,a4L,u,.i,.Glr I i l I I 4 for stay ol auction for thc thrcc propcrtics listcd in Sl.Nos 1, 2 and 3 as on

13.06.2025. Counsel has placed a table of the immov:rble sectrred assets to be sold which lists lour properties amounling to a total valuation of Rs.31.36 Crores. Counscl argucs that three out of Lhese lbur propcrties would comc to a valuation of 1ts.5.18 Crores. 'lhere is no material shown by counsel to co-rclaLe that thc propertics rvhich u'cre considered b1' the DRT-I with thc table placcd by colrnscl llefore us. There is also no indication of the datc 13.06.202fi u'hic[-r lbrnrs part ol the prayers in the l-A. filcd by the pcritioner. [1encc, notl-ring has been placcd beforc us to show that thc impugned order lvas cithcr drastic or disproportionate to the relief prayed for by Lhc pctitioner in thc LA. 11" We in facL find thc impugned ordcr Lo be rcasonable and without error. The pctitioner has been grantcd relief Lo the extent of lhe respondent No.1 Bank bcing rcstrair-rcd from issuing zL Sale Ccrtificale in favour ol the highest brddcr in llie auction sale subje<:t to thc petitioner depositing Rs.6 Crores, that too, in lri'o instalments 'l'he impugned order states that Lhe issucs raiscd by the petilioncr would be dealt with in the course of the main S.A.

72. The pctitioner has failed Lo pzry even the first instalment as direcled and has instead approached thrs Court for interventior-r. The petitioner is enjoying a stay in rcspect of payment of Lhc first instalmenl till tomorrorv, which is 04.O7.2025.

13. The decisions relied upon by thc petitioner do not assist the case for intervention by thc I-Iigh Court. Wc have already mentioned Whirlpool ^t 't 'ti t: -'.4: 1 5 I I CorporcLtion (supra) where the Suprcme Court laid dor,vn the despite the existence of an efficacious allernative remedy. In Educational Societg u. UCO tiank and. others3, the exceptlons PHR Inuent Supreme Court delineated three exceptions u.ithin which a Writ exceptions, namely, Petition may be entcrtained_ None of thc Lhrec of the statutory autllority not acting in accordance with the provlslons of the enactment and acting in de'ance of the funrlamental principres of judicial procedure and rcsorting to provisions *hith :rrc rc,earcd, appry in the facts of the preserr casc. In Ganqa Rart .lospital Tntst u. Municipai Corporation of DeLhia, did nor deal wirh The SARFAtrSI Act, 2OO2 at alt. Jimmy I.homas u. Indian.Banks involved a casc uncler Article 227 of the Constitution of India and a Single Bench of the Kerala High Court opined that the Tribunal under section 17 of 'the SARFAESI AcL, 2OO2, must apply its mind to the contentions taken in the Securitization Appiication and s[ar. should be granted based on the weli_ oI ttre dccisions cited rrome to the aid of the decidc ll'hethrr ;rn iniCrim settlcd principlcs govcrning rhc granL of interim relief 14. Therefore, none petttloner with regard to the issuc of maintainability. 15. We are mindful of Lhc Suprcmc Court in pHR Invent (supra), relying on United Bank of Indict u. Scttyautati T,ondon & Ors6, sounding a strong note of caution to High Courts entertaining Writ petitions in spite of the r l2o24l 6 scc 57q I 2001 ((io] DRJ 549 s 2023 SCC Online Ker 3479 6 2010 18) SCC 1 10 i I 1 t I 6 existencc of staLutory alternative rcmedies being ar.ailzrble to tl-re litiganLs. In this case, the potitioncl has zur alternative sralLltory remedy under scction 18 ofThe SARFAtrSI AcL,2OO2.

16. W.P.No.18513 of 2025, along with all conncctt:d applications, is accordingly drsmisscd, as I'rot bcen rnaintainable. Interim orders, if an1,, shall stand vacated. 'l'herc shall be no order AS tO COStS. ,l'l t ! //TRUE COPY// 'l . One CC to Sri Kuber Kaushik, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Smt. V. Dyumani, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies To, TJ PVL *e1 Sd/. K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR '+ -r SECTION OFFICER i I I I HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 ORDER WP.No.18513 of 2025 E S147 4 I \r 10 SEP zffi cl." i+ .'\.,,1' :'/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Ah ., I I I I I I 1 I I I I : l 1 I I i I