Telangana High Court
M/S.Dharti Dredging And ... vs Debts Recovery Tribunalii And 5 Others on 2 May, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.5644 of 2021
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Rajashekar Rao Salvaji, learned counsel representing Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.2069 of 2020 in O.A.No.146 of 2020 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad 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. 2
4. The Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon 1 has deprecated the practice of the High Courts in entertaining the writ petitions despite availability of an alternative remedy. The aforesaid view has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu 2. 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 filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of pre-deposit and 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 entertaining 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 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the 2002 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 10.04.2024. 1 (2010) 8 SCC 110 2 (2023) 2 SCC 168 3
6. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the aggrieved persons to take recourse to the remedy of appeal. It is directed that for a period of eight weeks, the interim order granted earlier by a Bench of this Court in this writ petition shall continue and in case the aggrieved persons file an appeal within the aforesaid period of eight weeks from today, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall extend the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to them.
7. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 02.05.2024 vs