Sri Mukund Maheswari v. Axis Bank Ltd

t3447 1 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDTKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2568 OF 2026 Between:

1. Sri Mukund Maheswari, S/o G.K. Maheshwari, Aged about 52 years, R/o Flat \o,401, Janapriya Prameela Enclave, Umanagar, Begumpetl Hyoerabad - 50001 6.

2. Smt. Neeta _Shrinivas Zanvar, W/o Shri Mukund Maheswari, Aged about 47 ygals, R/o Fpt-\9._401, Janapriya Prameela Enclave, Umanaga-r, Begumpet, Hyderabad -500016.

...PETITIONERS AND

1. Axis Bank Ltd, Having its. Registered office at Trishul - 3rd Floor, opp. samartheshwar Telnple, Law- Garden, Eilisbridge, Ahmedabad g6oobb. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director. A1so. having,office at No 5141186, Fatepuria Towers, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Rani Gunj, Hyderabad, Telangana 500003.

2. Table 9p1.... Tectrnolog;qq tyt. Ltd., Having its Registered ffice at Building Level 2, Prtde Elite, No,10, Museum Roadl shanthara Nagar, Ashok Nagarl Bengaluru, Karnataka 560001. Represented by its Managing Director. Also.having office at 6th Floor, western Aqua, HtrEC city, whitefietds, Kondapur, survey No. 8, Plot Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 (part), Hyderdbad - sOoog1; Telangana.

3. Mr. Mukkala [qry_a Krishna, Advocate Commissioner, Appointed under Crl. M.P. No. 28612.022, Bgfore the Chief^Metropolitan Magistrbte, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. N_a_g_ar. R/o 22-g-11A, Chilka'Nagar, Uppal, tvt'eocrra'i Distric( Telangana - 500039.

4. The chief Metropolitan-JMagistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500074.

(Uqt"g{qd in representative capacity regarding proceedings Crl.tr/.P. No. 286t2022)

5. Ing special chief secretary, Home Department, Fifth Floor, A Brock, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

6. The Director General of Police (DGP), Telangana State, Police Head Quarter:;, Lakdi Kapool, Hyderabad - 500004, Telangana.

7. The Cornmissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commission erale, Pl21 , Old Mumbai Hwy, Next to Care Hospital 2-48, Sri Shyam Nagar, Telecom Nagar Extensic,n, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana 500032.

8. The S:ation House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500081 .

9. The Bar Council of Telangana, Represented by its Chairman. High Court Premises, Near Public Gardens, Hyderabad - 500066. (Respondent No. 2 is not a necessary party) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, declaring that the Panchanama dated 30.O7.2022 sr.rbmitted by Respondent No.3 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy in Crl. M.P. No.28612022 and all consequential actions taken by Respondent No.1 under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, in respect of the Petitioners mortgaged property (Space No.

1C, Part of 1A, Western Aqua, Kondapur) are vitiated by fraud, collusion, and violation of principles of natural justice,'and are consequently liable to be set aside and to further direct restoration of grossession, status and rights of the Petitioners as lawful owners and mortgagor:; of the said property. (a)To direct initiation of appropriate legal, disciplinary and administrative action against Respondent No.3 (Advocate Commissioner) for professional misconduct and abuse of judicial authority (b)To direct the Chiel' Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District,(Respondent No.

4) to recall and reopen the proceedings in Crl. M.P. No. 2BO|2O22, in view of the false Panchanema dated 30.07.2022, violation of mandatory procedures under Rule 8(1), (6), and (7) of the Security lnterest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002,and suppression of material facts by the Advocate Commissioner and Axis Bank. (c)To direct the Respondent No.8 (Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station) to inclule the name of Respondent No.3 (Advocate Commissioner) in the FIR No. 5591201r-4 or altematively, to register a fresh FIR based on the Petitioners complaint date,d 12.08.2023 disclosing cognizable offence (d)To direct

Respondent No.9 (Bar Council of Telangana) to take on file and act upon the Petitioners complaint dated 12.08.2023 seeking disciplinary action against Respondent No.3 (e)To direct Respondent No.6 the Director General of Police, Telangana State, to monitor and expedite the investigation in FIR No. 559/2024 and to ensure that a thorough and impartial investigation is conducted, including into the role of Respondent No.3 (Advocate Commissioner), and report compliance to this Honorable Court within a time-bound manner. lA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Director General of Police, Telangana State (Respondent No. 6), to supervise and monitor the investigation into FIR No. 55912024, Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500081, and to ensure that the role of Respondent No.3 is investigated without bias or interference.

IA NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, including physical possession, auction, or alienation of the Petitioners mortgaged property bearing Space No. 1C (Part of 1A), Western Aqua, Kondapur, Hyderabad, based on the Panchanama dated 30.O7.2022 submitted by Respondent No.3 in Crl. M.P. No. 286t2022 on the file of The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500074, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.GAYATHRI Counsel for the Respondents No.Ito4 :

Counsel for the Respondents No.Sto8: SRI MAHESH RAJE, GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.9 :

"

The Court made the following: ORDER .. ..,.]i

INTTIEHIGHCOURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANAAT HYDERABAD 'I'HT], HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND TI{E HOI{OI.]RABLE Szu JUSTTCE NARSING RAO NANDIKONI):\ WP.No.2568 of 2026 Date:03.02.2026 Betrveen:

Mr.Mukund Mahesw'ari and another . .. I)ctitioticrs And Axis Bank Ltd., Ilaving repristered oltlcc at "Trishul", Ahmedabad and othcrs.

. . . Rcspondcnts ORDER: (per Hon'hle Sri Justice P-Sam Koshy) Hez,rd Smt.Gayathri, leraned counsel fbr the petitioners and Mr.Mahesn Raje. leamed Government Pleader for Home. appearing ftlr responden. Nos.6,7 and 8 and perused the record' 2.

'fhe present writ petition which has been filed seeking tirr thc fbllowing relieft "...lt is prayed that this Hon'ble Court to stay all further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act' 2002, including physical possession, auction, or alienation of the Petitioner's mortgaged property bearing Space No. lC (Part of IA)' Westem Aqua, Kondapur, Hyderabad, based on the Panchanama dated 30.07.2022 submitted by Respondent No'3 in Crl.MP.No.286 of 2O22 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad,Telangana-500074, pending disposal of the writ petition"'"

At the outset, this Bench is not inclined to entertain the rvrit ) \- petition fbr Inorc than one reason. Firstly, for the rcason that

I I i I i I .

i I I I I i proceedings under challenge is one which is originating from the Securitisation anci Recorrstruction of lrinancial Assets and Enforcement of' Security lnterest Act, 2002 (for shoft" the SARI-AESI Act"). Secondly" l'or thc reason that the petitioners have akeacly avaited remedy under the SARITAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short ''tlre D.R.T'.") i.e. SA.No.55 of 2022 on 07.03.2022 itself. The Sccuritization Application has since also been amended by taking the srounds that have been raiscd in the instant r.r,rit petition also vide arncndment application dated 27.12.2023. Thirdl,v. for the reason that the 'l'ribunal has already seized ol'the matter and the grounds raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition has already been raised in the Securitization Application before the D.R.'f. +.

In vier,v of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it ivould not be appropriate for the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction simultaneously to also decide the matter which is already sub.judiced before the D.R.T. We are fortified further by the judgment of l Hon'ble Supreme Court in PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL i:

ir, li ti II SOCIETY v.UCO BANKT, wherein in paragraph Nos.3, 7, 40 and 4l lr I:

li, lr,t'

he ld as undcr:

l', l;

i.

' 1ZOZal 6 Sr:prerne Court Cases 579

" 3. Th" borrower had availed a loan from the respondent Bank and in order to secure the said loan, the borrower had mortgaged i,,,r. prop.tti"t (hereinafter referred to as "the scheduled prop.rii.r:'; situated at Vijayawada, Andhra Pradcsh as collateral sccurity. Horvever, the bon'orver defaulted in the repaynlent ol'the It,an anrount. rvhich led the respondent Bank to initiate procecdings against the borrower undcr thc SARI'AI'sl Act'

7. On the same day i.e. t4-12-20 17. DRTpassed an interinl order in SA No. 1476 ol20l7, thereby refusing to interfere with the sale of the scheduled properties which was to be conducted on that very rjay. The borrower had also filed an interlocutory application b':ing ti N.,. 34-16 of 2017' thereby praying for stay of turther procecdings qua thc atrction of the scheduled properties' whe-re,in ilRt aireitea the respondent Bank not to conf,irm the sale of the schedulcd properties subject to the borrorver depositing 30o"'o.oi- the outstanding <tues as claimed for in the auction-sale notice in two .quul inuui,rents.'['he tlrst instalment o[ l59i' arnount 11n5 ts be clepositcd rvithin a week lrom the date of the said order' and the secon.linstalmento[[5o,,oamountwastobedepositedrvithintwo rveeks thereafter.

DRT further directed that, in the event that the frspsrver failed to make the aforesaid deposits. the interinl stay rvould stand vacated and the respondent Bank would be at liberty to confirm the sale in favour of the highest bidder, although the sale itself rvas rnade subject to the final outcome in SA No' 1476 of 2017.

40. $/e are therefore of the considered view that the High court has grossly erred in entertaining and allowing the petition under Article 126 oI the Constitution.

\ \ .11. While dismissing the writ petition, we will have to remind the l{igh Courts of the following words of th'rs Court in Satyawati 'fo'ndon lLnited Bank of Inditr v. Sa$'anati Tondon, (20 l0) 8 SCC ll0 : (2b10) 3 scc (Civ) zoo : 2010 INSC 4281 since we have come across various matters wherein the High Courts have been cntertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFn ESI Act in spitJof availability of an effective alternative remedy: (SCC p. 128. para 55) ''ji. lt is a nlattcr o[ serious concern that despite repeatcd pronouncement of this Court' the l{igtr C-ourts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRl'Act and the Sanresst Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover thcir dues. We hope and trust that in future the tligh Courts u'ill exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution. care arrd circumspection"'

i:.,;.;1. ,"

i :.ii:ii-r-.

t:-:ii+frr1i'

!E:*r-"H.g$*,'

g@-,

i) 5.

In view of the authoritative decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the light of the series of the.iudgments already enunciated b1 tht: F{on'blc Suprcme Court rcferred to in the said judgment, we do not ljncl the present rvrit petition one which could be cntertained by the tligh Court at this juncture.

6.

-the Writ Petition accordingly fails and rejected reserving the .right crt thc petitioners to resort to the remedy that the pet.itioners havc alrcadl, availed before the D.R.T. We do not find any good reason why ih"^ fl.n..i'. u'as not cousidered the grounds which are already raised b1' the petitioners in the application in the course of deciding the matter -['here shall be no order as to costs.

Misceilaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. .C.SULEKHA DEVI ISTANT REGI //TRUE COPY/ ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SMT.GAYATHRI Advocate [OPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the Hyderabad. IOUTI

3. Two CD Copies.

Telangana at BSK w

I HIGH COURT DATED:03/0212026 S ( () (.

I t t *

ORDER

WP.No.2568 of 2026 REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G ca?1uA Vk rn\--ateu