Telangana High Court
M/S Mennonite Brethren Property ... vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.15238, 15249, 23312
AND 23380 OF 2025
DATE OF ORDER: 01.04.2026
W.P.No.15238 of 2025:
Between:
M/s.Mennonite Brethren Property Association of India
Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director/Authorized Signatory
.....Petitioner
AND
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for Hyderabad Jurisdiction)
at Kolkata, Kolkata, West Bengal and 14 Others
.....Respondents
W.P.No.15249 of 2025:
Between:
M/s.Mennonite Brethren Property Association of India
Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director/Authorized Signatory
.....Petitioner
AND
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for Hyderabad Jurisdiction)
at Kolkata, Kolkata, West Bengal and 14 Others
.....Respondents
W.P.No.23312 OF 2025
Between:
M/s.Mennonite Brethren Property Association of India
Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director/Authorized Signatory
...Petitioner
AND
2
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
Punjab National Bank,
Rep. by its Authorised Officer
W.P.No.23380 OF 2025
Mr. Asad Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Mr. P.B.A Srinivasan, learned counsel representing Mr. E.Venkata
Siddartha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.5 to 13.
COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) W.P.Nos.15238 and 15429 of 2025
1. These Writ Petitions have been filed assailing a Common Order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata ('DRAT') dated 16.05.2025 allowing Appeals (Nos.2 and 3 of 2024) filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 (Banks) and the respondent Nos.7 to 15 (Auction Purchasers) in W.P.No.15238 of 2025. The DRAT set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad ('DRT') dated 06.12.2023 in S.A.No.116 of 2019.
2. The petitioner claims to be a Company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956, being represented by its Authorised Signatory Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla, who claims to be the Director of the petitioner. Paragraph 3 of the Writ Petitions states that Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla has been fully authorized by 3 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch the Board of Directors of the petitioner to file the Writ Petition on behalf of the petitioner vide Board Resolution dated 06.08.2021. The petitioner-Company claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Ac.57-24 guntas in Sy.Nos.36, 37, 58 and 59 of Kaverempet Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
3. The Writ Petitions state that the petitioner approached the respondent Banks for a term loan of Rs.38 crores for establishing a Medical College at Jadcherla. The petitioner leased the land in favour of the respondent No.6/Governing Council of the Conference of Mennonite Brethren Church of India for the purpose of development of a hospital. The respondent No.6 established an operating facility at the scheduled property but the said property was subsequently declared as a Non-Performing Asset. The respondent Banks thereafter issued an e-auction Sale Notice on 04.08.2018 and the Consortium of Banks conducted an auction on 07.01.2019 pursuant to which the respondent Banks also executed a Sale Certificate in favour of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 in respect of the scheduled property.
4. The petitioner filed S.A.No.166 of 2019 challenging the e-auction Notice and the auction. The DRT allowed the said SA on 06.12.2023 and set aside the e-auction Sale Notice as well as the 4 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch e-auction conducted on 07.01.2019. The DRT also set aside the consequential Sale Certificate dated 04.04.2019 issued by the respondent Banks in favour of the auction purchasers.
5. The respondent Banks and the auction purchasers challenged the DRT's order by way of two separate Appeals. The DRAT allowed both the Appeals and set aside the DRT's order dated 06.12.2023 and also dismissed SA No.166 of 2019 filed by the writ petitioner. The Common Order of the DRAT dated 16.05.2025 has been assailed by the Borrower in the four Writ Petitions before us.
6. The parties in the instant Writ Petitions are as follows:
The writ petitioner is the borrower. The three lender banks are respondent Nos.3 to 5. The Auction Purchasers are the respondent Nos.7 to 15.
W.P.Nos.15238 and 15429 of 2025: These Writ Petitions question the authority of Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Banks has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petitions. According to the counsel, the Writ Petitions should be dismissed since Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla who filed the 5 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch Writ Petitions claiming to be the Authorised Representative of the petitioner-Company is guilty of fabricating the alleged authorization letters and Board Resolutions of the petitioner- Company and also be held guilty for forgery on account of making false statements before this Court.
8. We have heard counsel appearing for the respondent Banks on the issue of maintainability and also the reply of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Auction Purchasers who support the case of the Banks. We have also perused the documents relied upon by the parties in relation to the plea of maintainability of the Writ Petitions.
9. From the documents including the Affidavits in the Writ Petitions, it is evident that certain facts are undisputed. The undisputed facts are as follows:
10. W.P.No.1230 of 2019 was filed by Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla claiming to be the Vice-President of the petitioner Company and challenging the e-auction Sale of the Company's property by the Consortium of Banks. Two more Writ Petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.1343 and 147 of 2019 were filed on the same issue one by the petitioner Company and the other by a different entity. These Writ Petitions also question the auction initiated by the Banks. All 6 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch the three Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court by a Common Order dated 28.02.2019. The said Common Order contains certain observations on the authorization given to Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla. The High Court found that the Writ Petition of the petitioner Company was filed by Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla who claimed to be the Vice-President-cum-Authorised Signatory of the Company but the Vakalat did not bear the rubber stamp either of the Company or of the Vice-President. The Vakalatnama in W.P.No.1230 of 2019 was found to be signed by Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla but without a rubber stamp or seal corroborating her position as the Vice-President or the Authorized Signatory of the petitioner Company. The letter of authorization given in favour of Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla was not on record. The Resolution Letters authorizing Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla was also not filed in the Court. The Court accordingly agreed with the contention of the Syndicate Bank that there was no evidence of authorization in favour of Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla in W.P.No.1230 of 2019.
11. Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla challenged the dismissal of W.P.No.1230 of 2019 before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7305 of 2019 and the same was dismissed on 05.04.2019. Thereafter, Mr.P.A. John filed S.A.No.166 of 2019 7 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch before the DRT challenging the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the parties. The SA filed by Mr. P.A. John was based on the authorization dated 02.04.2019 issued by Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla who claimed to be the President and GPA Holder of the petitioner Company. No resolution of the Board of Company was filed in support of the alleged Authorisation.
12. It subsequently came to light that Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla was neither the President nor the Director of the petitioner Company at the time of giving the Authorisation Letter to P.A. John on 02.04.2019.
13. Mr. P.A. John filed I.A (No.2679 of 2019) in S.A.No.166 of 2019 based on another Authorization Letter which was brought on record before the DRT. This Authorization Letter was also dated 02.04.2019 and was issued by Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla in the capacity of President and GPA Holder of the petitioner Company. The DRT dismissed I.A.No.2679 of 2019 by an order dated 28.06.2019 by observing that the fate of the SA would depend on the validity of the Authorization Letter issued by Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla. It is also observed that the SA would be in inherent and incurable defect if the SA was filed based on the Authorisation Letter issued by an incompetent person. 8
MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch Accordingly, the Tribunal partly dismissed the IA with regard to receipt of the Authorization Letter dated 02.04.2019 issued by P.B. Arnold, who is the father of Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla.
14. P.A. John filed W.P.No.15036 of 2019 against the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the DRT in S.A.No.166 of 2019. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 19.07.2019. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court observed that the petitioner Company would have to take necessary steps before the Tribunal to establish its claim that S.A.No.166 of 2019 was maintainable. However, the petitioner Company did not challenge the order dated 19.07.2019.
15. Thereafter, Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla filed four applications i.e., I.A. IR Nos.1282, 1283, 1284 and 1285 of 2021 before the DRT for being recognized as the Authorized Representative of the petitioner Company by annexing a Board Resolution dated 06.08.2021. This Resolution was signed by three Directors, two of them were Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla and her father P.A. John.
16. Admittedly, the Article of Association consideration of the petitioner Company requires a minimum strength of seven Directors to form the Board of the Company. The DRT rejected the I.A. IRs by its Common Order dated 31.10.2022. The DRT 9 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch observed that Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla authorized a person to file the SA and now the self-same person wants to represent the Company on her won and has authorized herself along with two other members. The DRT also found that the authorization was not given on a proper letter head and the Board Resolution dated 06.08.2021 was also not with the Full Body of the Committee Members as required by the Articles of Association of the petitioner's Company.
17. Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla challenged the order of the DRT dated 31.10.2022 before the DRAT by way of Appeal No.121 of 2022. The said Appeal was dismissed by the DRAT on 20.04.2023. Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla challenged the order of the DRAT dated 20.04.2023 before this Court by way of W.P.No.11746 of 2023. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 14.07.2023 with the observation that only 3 Directors have signed the Resolution dated 06.08.2021 and that none of the other Directors had knowledge of the said Board Resolution; neither was the said Board Resolution ratified. Hence, there was absence of a proper quorum. It was further held that the Board Resolution is invalid under sections 173(3) and 174 of The Companies Act, 2013 and also contrary to Clause-9 of the Articles of Association of the petitioner Company and that the petitioner showing herself as 10 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch Authorized Signatory of the petitioner Company vide Resolution dated 06.08.2021 is not valid in the eye of law.
18. Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16177 of 2023 against the order of the High Court dated 14.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.11746 of 2023. The SLP was dismissed on 07.08.2023. Against the said order, Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA No.2162 of 2023 in SLP (C) No.16177 of 2023). The Application was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.10.2023.
19. Significantly, Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla has filed the present Writ Petitions challenging the Common Order passed by the DRAT dated 16.05.2025 again claiming to be the Authorized Representative of the petitioner Company on the strength of the Board Resolution dated 06.08.2021. As stated above, the High Court in its order dated 14.07.2023 in W.P.No.11746 of 2023 had categorically declared that the said Board Resolution dated 06.08.2021 was invalid. It is also relevant that the Supreme Court did not interfere with the finding given by the High Court with regard to the invalidity of the Board Resolution dated 06.08.2021.
20. Hence, the finding of the High Court has attained finality. We do not find any merit in the contentions of counsel appearing 11 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch for the appellant that the issue of authorization is insignificant and that the Writ Court nevertheless should adjudicate on the controversy on merits. The contentions of the appellants made in the present Writ Petitions with regard to authorization were in fact also urged before the DRAT. The DRAT considered the rival contentions correctly and came to the conclusion that the Securitization Applicant (writ petitioner before this Court) was not properly represented through the authorized persons and the Securitization Appeals under section 17 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022 were hence not legally maintainable.
21. We are of the considered view that the Affidavits filed in the Writ Petitions by Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla and by Mr.P.A. John cannot pass muster in the absence of a valid authorization by the petitioner Company. The undisputed facts placed before us also show that the genuineness of the authorization relied upon by the petitioner is in serious doubt. The lack of authenticity is reinforced by the fact that Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla was neither the President nor the Director of the petitioner Company as on 02.04.2019 which was the basis of filing S.A.No.166 of 2019 before the DRT by Mr.P.A. John. It is also admitted that no resolution of the petitioner Company was filed in support of the 12 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch said authorization. This was in fact the second instance when the genuineness of the document filed by Mr.P.A.John and Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla were called to question and decided against her.
W.P.Nos.23312 and 23380 of 2025: These Writ Petitions question the authority of Mr. P.A.John.
22. The respondent Nos.1 - 3 have also argued on the maintainability of W.P.Nos.23312 and 23380 of 2025. The respondents contend that Mr.P.A.John who claims to be the authorized representative of the petitioner Company, does not have any valid or subsisting authority to represent the petitioner Company or file the Writ Petitions on behalf of the petitioner Company. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 - 3 submits that the Board Resolution dated 05.08.2019 relied on by Mr.P.A.John is a fabricated document and makes him liable for appropriate action. Counsel has placed relevant documents in support of his submissions.
23. Article 9 - 'Board of Directors' - stipulates that the Board of Directors of the Company (the petitioner herein) shall be a minimum of seven and a maximum of thirteen directors. (Clause i. of Article 9). Article 9 does not mention any nomenclature of 13 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch 'General Director'. The Companies Act, 2013 ('the 2013 Act') also does not have any provision/description of 'General Director'. The expression 'General Director' assumes importance since the authorization dated 02.04.2019 produced by Mr. P.A. John mentions that Mr. P.A. John is a 'General Director' of the petitioner Company and is authorized to represent the petitioner before various judicial forums by filing cases on behalf of the petitioner. The authorisation has been given by one Dr. P.B. Arnold M.S.
24. Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 - 3 submits that the petitioner Company had only three Directors at the relevant point of time i.e., as on 02.04.2019 whereas the authorisation only mentions Dr. P.B. Arnold M.S. as the President and General Power of Attorney for the petitioner Company. The authorisation does not refer to any of the other Directors as on 02.04.2019 as provided under Article 9 of the Articles of Association of the petitioner Company. Moreover, the Minutes of Meeting of the Board of Directors of the meeting held on 05.08.2019 records that the Company had eleven Directors as on 05.08.2019 and that Mr. P.A. John was one of the Directors who signed the resolution. The said Minutes of Meeting are however contrary to the statutory records of the Company as maintained under the provisions of the 2013 Act. The statutory records of the Company for the Financial Year 14 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 reflects that there were only three Directors of the Company in that Financial Year as opposed to the eleven Directors reflected in the Board Meeting held on 05.08.2019 and relied upon by the petitioner.
25. Hence, the Minutes of Meeting dated 05.08.2019 produced by the petitioner and the letter of authorisation dated 02.04.2019 are contrary to the petitioner's own records. This Court hence finds substance in the argument made on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 - 3 that the petitioner Company did not have eleven Directors at the relevant point of time and the description of Mr. P.A. John as 'General Director' of the Company as evidenced by the Minutes of Meeting dated 05.08.2019 lack factual basis.
26. Section 179 of the 2013 Act - 'Powers of Board' empowers the Board of Directors of a Company to exercise all such powers and to do all such acts, as the Company is authorised to exercise and do subject to the provisions contained in the Memorandum or Articles of the Company (section 179(1) and the proviso thereto, respectively). Hence, the person representing the Company must either be a Director of the Company as on the relevant date. In other words, the suit/proceeding on behalf of the Company 15 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch must be instituted by an authorised person who is competent under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
27. Mr. P.A. John has not placed any resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company authorizing him to institute the Writ Petitions or any resolution ratifying the decision taken on behalf of the Company authorizing Mr. P.A. John to represent the petitioner Company and file the Writ Petitions. As stated above, the authorisation letter is given by only one Director and does not reflect the resolution being taken on behalf of all the Directors of the Board as on 02.04.2019. The authorisation letter is also vague to the extent of not mentioning the present Writ Petitions and only stating "various judicial forums" in support of the alleged authorisation. A valid authorisation is a statutory requirement and cannot be presumed in the absence of a valid Board Resolution.
28. Order III of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') relates to Recognized Agents and Pleaders. Order III Rule 1 relates to appearance, application or act in or to any Court authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, except where otherwise expressly provided by law, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent or by a Pleader appearing, 16 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch applying or acting on his behalf. Consequently, the institution of proceedings on behalf of the Company must specifically be authorized by a valid Board Resolution. Such Authority cannot merely be presumed from a person's designation as 'General Director' of the Company as on the date of authorisation.
29. It must also be stated that the argument that the petitioners do not have any alternative or efficacious remedy save and except approaching the writ Court by filing the present Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution lacks substance. Nothing prevented the petitioners from producing valid authorizations given by the Board of Directors of the petitioners Company in a duly constituted Board Meeting as provided under the 2013 Act as well as Articles of Association of the petitioner Company. In the absence of such authorization, the Writ Petitions cannot be admitted or held to be maintainable in the absence of such authorization. The Court cannot overlook the fact that the Writ Petitions were filed under the Seal and Stamp of the petitioner Company despite the fact that Mr. P.A. John was neither a Director of the Company at the relevant point of time nor had any lawful authority to represent the Company or used its Seal and Stamp as 'Director'. In essence, Mr. P.A. John affixed his signature without being authorized by the petitioner Company under a Board 17 MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch Resolution which appears to be fabricated and without being a Director of the petitioner Company. Section 179(3) of the 2013 Act relating to 'Powers of Board' enumerates the powers which can be exercised by the Board of Directors of a Company on behalf of the Company by means of Resolutions passed at the meetings of the Board. Since the purported authorization dated 02.04.2019 is not supported by a valid Board Resolution, it naturally follows that Mr. P.A. John did not have the necessary statutory backing to represent the petitioner Company.
30. Moreover, the absence of a valid authorization is not a curable defect. In any event, the petitioner Company failed to give any cogent or credible reason as to why Mr.P.A. John was permitted to represent the Company despite not having the locus standi to do so. As stated above, both the Letter of Authorisation dated 02.04.2019 as well as the handwritten Board Minutes dated 05.08.2019 reflecting 11 Directors including Mr.P.A. John, are contrary to the statutory records filed by the petitioner Company itself from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 showing that the petitioner had only 3 Directors at the relevant point of time and that Mr.P.A. John was not a Director from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020. 18
MB,J & GPK,J W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
31. We are hence constrained to hold that both sets of Writ Petitions, namely, W.P.Nos.15238 and 15249 of 2025 (filed by Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla) and 23312 and 23380 of 2025 (filed by Mr. P.A. John), are not maintainable and should be dismissed on that ground. Neither Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla nor Mr. P.A. John had the legal capacity or competence to represent the petitioner Company at the relevant point of time.
32. W.P.Nos.15238, 15249, 23312 and 23380 of 2025, along with all connected applications, are accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 01.04.2026 TJMR/BMS