AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.Devdas J
Learned counsel Sri.G.S.Hulamani has entered appearance for respondent No.1-bank by filing caveat petition.
Notice to respondent No.2 may not be necessary for the following reason.
The petitioners are before this court for a limited purpose, although they are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Karnataka at Bengaluru in S.A.No.173/2022 dated 18.07.2022, the limited prayer is that for a period of 10 days from today, respondent No.1-bank may be directed not to register the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. Learned senior counsel Jaykumar S.Patil submits on behalf of the petitioners that in terms of the appeal provision provided under the SARFAESI Act, in Section 18, the petitioners are entitled to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is to be preferred within a period of 30 days. However, in the meanwhile, respondent No.1-bank is making hectic efforts to register the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. Learned senior counsel submits that it is well settled position of law that during the statutory appeal period, the orders passed by the courts cannot be executed. It is only for this purpose, this writ petition is filed.
Per contra, learned counsel Sri.G.S.Hulamani, appearing for respondent No.1-bank would strenuously contend that a close reading of the earlier orders passed by this court and the orders passed by the DRT would make it clear that the private limited company of which the two petitioners are directors are in minority and majority of the directors have in fact conceded and have filed affidavits before the DRT stating that the bank has proceeded in accordance with law and therefore, the bank may be permitted to execute the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser. It is sought to be contended that the Tribunal has in fact dismissed the application on the ground of limitation and it has been observed in the orders of the Tribunal that the petitioners have no locus standi. Learned counsel would further submit that even if there is an appeal provision under the statute, the petitioners were required to approach the Appellte Authority and not this court by invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1-bank and perusing the petition papers and more so in the light of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this court finds that the petitioners are before this court seeking indulgence only for a limited purpose and that too a protection to the petitioners within the prescribed period of appeal, to restrain the respondent No.1-bank from executing a sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 auction purchaser. As rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel, it is by now well settled that when a statute provides for an appeal, the orders of the court should not be normally executed within a period of appeal prescribed by the statute. Thirty days period has been prescribed under the statute to enable the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal. The orders of the Tribunal have been passed on 18.07.2022. Even if it is taken that the certified copies have been issued on the same day, even then the petitioners have the right to approach the Appellate Tribunal on or before 16.08.2022. In the meanwhile, if the respondent No.1-bank is not prevented from executing the sale deed, the very purpose of the petitioners approaching the Appellate Tribunal would become futile.
In the light of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is required to be accepted.
Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1-bank not to execute or register a sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 till 02.08.2022. In the meanwhile, if the petitioners are able to secure an interim order at the hands of the Appellate Tribunal, they may do so.
Ordered accordingly.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.