M/s. RBL Bank Limited vs Petitioners

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the ciriumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Orders, direction or more pa(icularly one in nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the order daled. 12-11-2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Misc. Appeal Dairy No. 1156 of 2025 staying the operation of the order passed by the DRT-Il, Hyderabad in lA. No. 2319 ot 2025 in SA. No. 84 of 2024 dated. 09-09-2025 is arbitrary, unsustainable in law and in violation of audi alteram partem and set-a-side the impugned exparte order passed by DRAT and restore the order passed by the DRT-Il, Hyderabad in lA. No. 2319 of 2025 dated. 09-09-2025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the , rrcurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cot.r ma'/ be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the order date,1 12-11-2025 passed by the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata in Misc. Appeal Dairy No 11:; of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. AVINASH DESAI SENIOR : )UNSEL REP SRI SRINIVAS GAN(r' SHETTI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS SENIr )R COUNSEL REP SRI S. K. SHABBER lr IMED The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD. THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR V/RIT PETITION NO.37868 OF 2025 DATE: 1O.12.2O25 Between Sri M. Nageswara Rao and another M/s. RBL Bank Limited Versus Petitioners .,..Respondent Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representrng Sri Gangisheetty Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representrng Sri S.K. Shabber Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. ORDER: (Per Hontrle Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Petition arises out of an order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (DRAT) in Misc. Appeal Diary No.1156 of 2025.

2. The petitioners herein, u,ho are the personal guarantors of the borrower, frled I.A.No.2319 of 2025 in S.A.No.84 ol 2024 2 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll, Hyderab:1 (DRT-II) lbr stay of all further proceedings initiated by the re s ronclcnt Bank pursuant to an c-auction Salc Notice dated ( 5.0,8.2025 rn rcspecL o[ the petition schedule property. 81. t t ._- ordcr clatccl

09.O9.2025 passed in the said I.A, the DRT grantc I inrcrim srav subject to the petitioners depositing Rs. 1,80,00 { 00/ in r,hrct: cqual instalments of Rs.60,00,000/- within tl.c time fr.rnrcs strpulated by the DRT-ll. The petitioners depos i cd the entirc irmount u,ithin the specified time frames and b1, ( r:tober, 2O25. 'lhe respondent-Bank, however, chalienged thr ordcr clatcd O9.O9.2O25 passed by the DRT-II before the T ) tAT 81 rhe impugned order dated 12.L1.2025, the DRAT ndnritted thc Appeal, dirccted the matter to be listed on O : O 1 ..)026 ancl itayed the operation of the order dated 09.09.20.5 till the nexr date of lrearing.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that rl c respondent Bank issued a paper publication on 20.17.2025 or thc sale o[ tlre secrrred asset and hxing the date of e-auction , n I 1.12.,20,25 (rvhich is tomorrow).

4. We have heard Iearned Senior Counsel ap6 _-aring for thr: petitioner and for the respondent Bank. I i J

5. Apart from the impugned order of the DRAT dated

12.11.2025 being a non-speaking order, we find the actron of the respondent Bank to be beyond the bounds of reasonableness and fair play.

6. The paper publication for the e-auction was issued on

20.11.2025 despite the petitioner complyir-rg rn'ith the conditionai order dated O9.O9.2O25 passe d by the DRT-ll and depositing the entire amount of Rs.1,8O,OO,00O/ n'irhrn the stipulated time. It is evident that the respondcttt Bank took advantage of the non-speaking order of stay and immediately proceeded to initiate steps for the e-auction. The action of the respondent Bank is also questionable for the rcason that the DRAT directed the Appeal to be listed on 09 .O1.2026. Hence, as on the date of hearing o[ the Appeal, nothing q'ould remain ol the secured asset for the respondent Bank to place beforc the DRAT. 7 . We hence deem it fit to set. aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the DRAT and to stay all steps taken by the respondent Bank in respect of the secured assel which forms the subject matter of the Appeal before the DRAT. I l l We make it clear that we have not expressed an1 rltinion on the mcrits of tite dispute betrvecn the parties or ,r - Misc. Altpeal Dizrn, 1J6 1 56 oi 2025 pending before the DR{T. S. W.P.No,37868 of 2025 is accordinglr. allorved and disposed of in terms of the above. All connec.t:1 applications stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to (r ,sts. STI, P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ST ISTANT REGISTRAR ' \ '... //TRUE COPY// $ecrtoru oFFtcER

1. The Authorized Officer, M/s RBL Bank Ltd ' G;;; ir;k, 6ieln ranos,-eegumpet' Hvderabad-50() 16 z Ei,""-ic i"' sEi snlr'r rvn's cAr'tolsuefrt' Advocattr oPUCI i 5i]! 66 i" s-ai s- ( bHneBeR nHvED' Advocate [( PUCI 4. Two CD CoPies D No 6-3't i5'Ground Floor' Opp BM BSw To, I I HIGH COURT DATED:1011212025 otL 9 Arq \' P * 1 I t,c 4 ORDER WP.No.37868 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITI- OUT COSTS G '"-tDko' 2\\