Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Venkateswara Engineers vs Thotakura Prasad Rao on 29 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No.: CRP. No.1416 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
No DATE ORDER OFFICE
NOTE
3 29.07.2022 UDPR, J & VS, J
Heard Sri K.Sai Rama Murthy, learned counsel for
petitioners. Severely fulminating the Para 10 of the impugned
order dated 21.07.2022 in S.A. No.155 of 2019 on the file of
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, learned counsel
would submit that directing the Commissioner of Police to
lodge the FIR against the respondents 3 to 5 therein, is clearly
a transgression of the powers conferred under Section 17 of
SARFAESI Act on the Debts Recovery Tribunal and hence,
the impugned order is without jurisdiction. On this aspect,
learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi and
others [(2013) 15 SCC 341], wherein at Paragraph No.38, it is
held thus:
"38. Section 34 of the RDB Act provides that the
said Act would have overriding effect. We have
referred to the aforesaid provisions to singularly
highlight that the sacrosanct purpose with which the
tribunals have been established is to put the
controversy to rest between the banks and the
borrowers and any third party who has acquired any
interest. They have been conferred jurisdiction by
special legislations to exercise a particular power in
a particular manner as provided under the Act.
They cannot assume the role of a court of different
nature which really can grant "liberty to initiate any
action against the bank". They are only required to
decide the lis that comes within its own domain. If
it does not fall within their sphere of jurisdiction
they are required to say so. Taking note of a
submission made at the behest of the auction
purchaser and then proceed to say that he is at
liberty to file any action against the bank for any
omission committed by it has no sanction of law.
The said observation is wholly bereft of
jurisdiction, and indubitably is totally unwarranted
in the obtaining factual matrix. Therefore, we have
no hesitation in deleting the observation, namely,
"liberty is also given to the auction purchaser to file
action against the bank for any omission committed
by it".
He, thus prayed to stay the operation of the impugned
portion of the order.
The point of argument raised by learned counsel
requires a thorough hearing after the respondents put up their
appearance and filed counters. As of now, having found prima
facie force in the submission of learned counsel in the light of
the above referred judgment, there shall be stay of operation of
the Para 10 of the impugned order and also the consequential
direction given by the lower tribunal to the Commissioner of
Police to lodge the FIR as per the provisions of the law and as
per Cr.P.C. and further directing him to supervise the
investigation of the case and report to the Debts Recovery
Tribunal as to the result of the investigation, for a period of six
weeks. We, however, make it clear that so far as the Tribunal's
allowing the S.A. is concerned, we do not interfere with that
order.
Issue notice to respondents.
Learned counsel for appellants is permitted to take out
personal notice on respondents and file proof of service in the
Registry.
Post on 02.09.2022.
________
UDPR, J
______
VS, J
Note: issue C.C. by 01.08.2022.
B/o.SS
