Telangana High Court
M/S. Arkay Energy Rameswaram Limited vs Icici Bank Limited on 2 May, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.11041 of 2018
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Owais Zubair Sait, learned counsel representing Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. R.Sridhar, learned counsel representing Mr. P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal 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 petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of appeal. In case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of eight weeks from today, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall extend the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the petitioner.
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