Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kesavarapu Shanmukeswara Rao, vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal, on 5 August, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
W.P.No. 14941 OF 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)
Order dated 05-07-2021 passed by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, is an appealable one. In view of the law
declared in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and
others Vs. Mathew K.C.1 and ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Umakanta
Mohapatra and others2 and in the light of the existence of
statutory appellate remedy, we are of the opinion the writ petition
may not be entertained. The petitioner has relied on judgment of
Telangana High Court in Raus Constructions Private Limited Vs.
Indian Bank3, wherein the Court inter alia held as follows:
"It is contended by respondents that the petitioners have an
effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section
18 of the Act to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and
that the present writ petition is not maintainable. We reject
the said plea because there is no Chairman of the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata and appeals have to be
filed at that place and parties have to go to the In-Charge
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, at Allahabad for interim
relief. This is cumbersome and the alternative remedy
therefore cannot be said to be an effective alternative
remedy."
1
2018 (3) SCC 85
2
(2019) 13 SCC 497
3
2020 (6) ALD 339 (TS) (DB)
2
We note in the said judgment, the ratios of the aforesaid decisions
of the Apex Court had not been considered. It is nobody's case
that the appellate tribunal, namely Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Kolkata, is non-functional. Hence, we are of the opinion
that the appeal requires to be filed before the tribunal concerned
and be heard in accordance with law. However, keeping in mind
the facts and circumstances of the case and the balance of
convenience and inconvenience, we give liberty to the petitioner to
file appeal within six weeks from date before the appellate tribunal.
To enable the petitioner to do so, there shall be an order of status
quo in respect of the subject property for a period of eight weeks.
In the event an appeal is filed, it shall be open to the petitioner to
seek interim relief before the appellate tribunal in accordance with
law which needless to mention the said tribunal shall consider
independently after giving opportunity of hearing to all parties and
without being swayed by observations made in this order.
2. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. All
issues kept open. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed in consequence. No order as costs.
____________________
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.
__________________
K.SURESH REDDY, J.
Date: 05-08-21,
JSK
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
W.P.No. 14941 OF 2021
(Order of the Division Bench delivered by
Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)
DATE: 05TH AUGUST, 2021
JSK
