Telangana High Court
Maddali Sri Sai Venkata Satyanarayana vs The State Bank Of India on 21 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.438 of 2025
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel
representing Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the
appellants.
2. During the course of hearing, learned Senior counsel for
the appellants fairly submitted that against the order dated
05.03.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at
Hyderabad, the appellants' appeal is admittedly pending before
the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (for short, ' the
appellate Tribunal'). However, the appellate Tribunal needs to
hear the appellants on the question of waiver of deposit. Till
such time the said question is decided and the appellants'
interim prayer is considered by the appellate Tribunal, the
appellants may be protected. He further submits that the
appellants will forthwith file applications for stay and
preponement of the appeal before the appellate Tribunal and till
such time the said applications are decided, the appellants may
be protected.
3. In our opinion, learned Single Judge declined
interference in W.P.No.10600 of 2025 on the basis of a recent
judgment of Supreme Court in Phr Invent Educational Society
v. Uco Bank 1. If the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed
by the learned Single Judge is tested on the envil of principles
laid down in Phr Invent Educational Society (supra), we are
inclined to observe that the learned Single Judge has taken a
plausible view. Thus, no interference is warranted. The
appellants' appeal is admittedly pending consideration before the
appellate Tribunal. The appellants will be at liberty to file stay
application and application for preponement of the appeal before
the appellate Tribunal. So far, question of grant of interim relief
for interregnum period is concerned, the curtains are finally
drawn on this aspect by the Supreme Court in Kalabharati
Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania 2 wherein, in
paragraph No.22, the Supreme Court has opined as under:-
"22. It is a settled legal proposition that the forum
of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of
giving interim relief as the only and the final relief
to any litigant. If the court comes to the
conclusion that the matter requires adjudication
by some other appropriate forum and relegates
the said party to that forum, it should not grant
any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for
{(2024) 4 S.C.R. 541
(2010) 9 SCC 437
an interregnum period till the said party
approaches the alternative forum and obtains
interim relief. (Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal
Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12]
, Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1962 SC
1305] , State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev [AIR
1964 SC 685] , State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh
"Balak" [AIR 1966 SC 1441 : 1966 Cri LJ 1076]
and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar
Shantaram Wadke [(1976) 1 SCC 496 : 1976 SCC
(L&S) 70 : AIR 1975 SC 2238].)"
In this view of the matter, no interim relief is due to the
appellants.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of by reserving
liberty to the appellants to file appropriate applications for stay
and preponement of the appeal before the appellate Tribunal.
We have no doubt that if such applications are filed, the
appellate Tribunal will consider the same in accordance with
law. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 21.04.2025
Myk/Tsr
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Date: 21.04.2025
myk/tsr
