M/S Jai Bharath Enterprises vs State Bank Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 157 Tel

Telangana High Court

M/S Jai Bharath Enterprises vs State Bank Of India on 30 March, 2026

                                  1




         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 No.9287 OF 2026


                         DATE: 30.03.2026

Between:
M/s.Jai Bharath Enterprises
                                                           ...Petitioner

                                  And

State Bank of India and Another

                                                        ...Respondents

Mr.T.V.Kalyan Singh, learned counsel representing Ms.Priyanka Chowdary,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.


ORDER:

(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The writ petition assails from a docket order dated

11.11.2025 in I.A.No.2903 of 2025 in S.A.No.486 of 2025

passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I (DRT-I) at

Hyderabad directing interim stay of all further proceedings

including dispossession in respect of schedule property

pursuant to Crl.M.P.No.179 of 2025 subject to the petitioner

depositing a sum of Rs.80 lakhs in two equal installments

i.e., Rs.40 lakhs each.

2. The first installment of Rs.40 lakhs was to be paid on or

before 25.11.2025 and the balance sum of Rs.40 lakhs to be

paid on or before 09.12.2025.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to make payment of

either of the two installments and instead filed the present

writ petition on 16.03.2026.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the DRT-I failed to consider a notification issued by the

Central Government in passing the impugned docket order.

5. We cannot accept the stance taken on behalf of the

petitioner, since the bona fides of the petitioner can only be

established after the petitioner complies with the impugned

order passed by the DRT-I on 11.11.2025. In any event, we

are also of the view that the writ petition would not lie from

the impugned docket order since the petitioner has not been

able to place any of the exceptions for which the High Court

should interfere, where the petitioner continue to have

efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

6. W.P.No.9287 of 2026, along with all other connected

applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date:30.03.2026 EDS

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.9287 OF 2026

DATE: 30.03.2026 EDS