IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22344 of 2008 Between: Hemanth. V.Nerlekar S/o.V.M.Nerlekar 1-4-92, 304, Vijaya Sai Residency, New Maruti Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Rep. by its Chairperson, Chennai. 2 PNB Housing Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Vice-President, 6-1-73, Saifabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad - 004. 3 Bovirisetty Ranga Prasad, C/o. PNB Housing Finance Ltd., 6-1-73, Saifabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad - 004. (The third respondent is not a necessary party to the Writ Petition) .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the order dated 17.9.2008 in MA (SARFAESI) 155/2008, after calling for the records on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22459 of 2008 Between: K. Venkat Rao S/o. K. Subba Rao 1-4-92, Flat No.305, Vijay Sai, Residency, New Maruthi Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad-500035. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Debut Recovery Appellate Tribunal, rep. by its Chairperson, Chennai. 2 PNB Housing Finance Ltd., rep. by its Vice-President, 6-1-73, Saifabad, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad-04. 3 P. Sudhakar Reddy S/o. Kista Reddy R/o. Bellampally, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 17-09-2008 in MA(SARFAESI) 159/2008, after calling for the records on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22517 of 2008 Between: P.L. Esther Ranid W/o. Ashok 1-4-92, Flat No. 302, Vijaya Sai Residency New Naruthi Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Recovery Appellate Tribunal , Rep. by its Chairperson, Chennai 2 PNB Housing Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Vice President, 6-1-73 Saifabad, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 3 K.V. Satyanarayana, C/o. PNB Housing Finance Ltd., 6-1-73 Saifabad, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari quash the order dt. 17-9-2008 in MA (SARFAESI) 157/2008 after calling for the records on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22523 of 2008 Between: U.Anil Kumar S/o.late Dr.U.U.M.Sharma R/o.1-4-92,FlatNo.303,Vijayasai residency New Maruti Nagar,Kothapet,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, rep.by its Chairperson, Chennai 2 PNB Housing Finance Ltd., rep.by its Vice President 6-1-73, Saifabad,Lakdikapul,Hyderabad-004 3 Venkat Seshagiri s/o.Not known C/o.Punjab National bank Housing Ltd., Finance Ltd 6-1- 73,Saifabad,Lakdikapul,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to pass an order or direction more particualrly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari quash the order dated 17.9.2008 in MA(SARFAESI) 158/2008 after calling for the records on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,Chennai, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22530 of 2008 Between: Y.Lalita Devi, W/o. (L) P.Bhima Sankaram 1-4-92, 301, Vijaya Sai Residency, New Maruthi Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Debt Recovery Appellate, Tribunal, Rep by its Chairperson, Chennai. 2 PNB Housing Finance Ltd., Rep by its Vice-President, 6-1-73, Saifabad, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad-004 3 A.V.Ramana, 244/2RT, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad - 500 059 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the order dated 17-9-2008 in MA [SARFAESI] 154/2008, after calling for the records on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22554 of 2008 Between: Ch. Sita W/o. Muralidhar Rao 1-4-92, 202, Vijaya Sai Residency New Naruthi Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Recovery Appellate Tribunal , Rep. by its Chairperson, Chennai 2 PNB Housing Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Vice President, 6-1-73 Saifabad, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 3 V. Kishore S/o. Panduranga 8-22-33, Gandhi Nagar Park, Kakinada .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari quash the order dt. 17-9-2008 in MA (SARFAESI) 156/2008 after calling for the records on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22577 of 2008 Between: Y.Sita Devi W/o.V.Rama Seshu 1-4-92, 104,Vijaya Sai Residency New maruthi Nagar,Kothapet,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, rep.by its Chairperson, Chennai 2 PNB Housing Finance Ltd.,rep.by its Vice-President 6-1-73, Saifabad, Lakdikapul,Hyderabad-04 3 A.Sujata,prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and quash the order dated 17.9.2008 in MA(SARFAESI) 160/2008 after calling for the records on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NOs. 22344, 22459, 22517, 22523, 22530, 22554 & 22577 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) All these writ petitions arise out of the similar orders passed in M.A.(SARFAESI) Nos.155, 159, 157, 158, 154, 156 and 160 of 2008, respectively, dated 17-09-2008, passed by the 1st respondent-Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, modifying the common order passed in various securitization applications S.A.Nos.138, 139, 140, 133, 136, 132 and 134 of 2007, respectively, dated 04-01-2008, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. The S.A.138 of 2007 and batch was filed by the petitioners herein for grant of interim stay of further proceedings, pursuant to the notice, dated 08-06-2007, issued under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization Act, 2002, by the 2nd respondent-Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited, Hyderabad, for the purpose of taking possession and to sell away the property alleged to have been mortgaged in favour of the 2nd respondent-bank by various borrowers, who are made as respondent No.3 in each writ petition. 2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, after hearing both the parties, by common order dated 04-01-2008, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in respect of notices, dated 08-06- 2007, for taking possession of the mortgaged property, till the disposal of the main securitization applications on merits, without imposing any condition of depositing the alleged debt. 3. Aggrieved by the said common order, the 2nd respondent- bank filed appeals before the 1st respondent-appellate Tribunal. By the impugned similar orders, dated 17-09-2008, the 1st respondent-appellate Tribunal disposed of all the appeals directing each of the petitioners herein to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the 2nd respondent-bank as a pre-condition to continue the interim stay granted by the Tribunal, Hyderabad, and further directed to deposit the said amount in two equal instalments; Rs.50,000/- shall be paid on or before 17-10-2008 and remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid on or before 17-11-2008. 4. Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the said orders of the 1st respondent-appellate Tribunal are the final orders and only for the purpose of complying direction, the next date of hearing was given. 5. The said order of the 1st respondent-appellate Tribunal has been questioned by the writ petitioners, who are the applicants before the Tribunal, Hyderabad. 6. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the entire property in all the above appeals is in the nature of residential flats, which were constructed in the premises bearing No.1-4-92, situated at New Maruti Nagar, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District. It is further stated that the entire property, admeasuring 440.36 square yards, is owned by one Smt. Y.Raja Rajeshwari, having purchased the same by a registered sale deed, dated 18-10- 1966, bearing document No.2725/66. It is further stated that the said Raja Rajeshwari sold the undivided share of the property in favour of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners have developed the said land through a builder viz., A.Vijaya Kumar and the said builder has no share in the constructed area except the right of construction at the cost of the petitioners. The building was constructed and the respective flats also have been handed over to the writ petitioners some time in the year 2001. Since then the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same by paying taxes to the Municipal Corporation, Water as well as the Electricity Departments. 7. While so, the notices, dated 08-06-2007, under Section 13 (4) of the Act, were affixed on the doors of the petitioners’ flats stating that the possession of the said building has been taken over by the 2nd respondent-bank and further action will be initiated for the sale of the said flats towards the alleged debt due by the borrowers. Questioning the said notices, the petitioners herein filed the securitization applications before the Tribunal, Hyderabad, praying to grant stay of all further proceedings pending disposal of the securitization applications including taking over possession as the possession was always with the petitioners alone. 8. It is further stated that the borrowers have played fraud by creating documents as if styling themselves as the owners and purchasers of the said flats and they are hand in glove with the 2nd respondent-bank officials and obtained loans. It is further stated that the petitioners have made enquiries and also filed criminal complaints before the police and the police also registered cases and arrested the builder as well as some of the 2nd respondent-bank officials and since then the borrowers are absconding. 9. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-bank submits that all the said contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are incorrect and not true and that the 2nd respondent-bank seriously disputes the said contentions and he further submits that in fact, the original owner sold the property in favour of the borrowers and the borrowers have a right, title and interest over the said property and hence, the 2nd respondent-bank officials have rightly advanced the loan amounts to the borrowers. He further contends that the D.R.T., Hyderabad, has no jurisdiction or authority to decide the title disputes and it is for the Civil Court alone to decide the title dispute. 10. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the contentions of either of the parties. A perusal of the common order of the D.R.T, Hyderabad, goes to show that the D.R.T., Hyderabad, after hearing the 2nd respondent-bank and dealing with the various contentions, thought it fit to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the D.R.T., Hyderabad, has mechanically passed the said interim order. 11. Further, a perusal of the similar orders of the 1st respondent-appellate Tribunal, goes to show that the appellate Tribunal has mechanically passed the impugned similar orders without considering any of the facts and the prima facie findings as reached by the D.R.T., Hyderabad. Inasmuch as the serious allegations have been made about playing fraud on the 2nd respondent-bank and cheating by the borrowers, more so, when the criminal cases are pending against the so-called borrowers and 2nd respondent-bank officials, and disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated against some of the 2nd respondent-bank officials who are connected with the grant of loans, it is just and proper to grant stay of all further proceedings. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the D.R.T., Hyderabad, has rightly considered the prima facie case in favour of the petitioners and accordingly, granted interim stay. 12. We do not see any justification on the part of the 1st respondent-appellate Tribunal in passing the impugned similar orders by imposing the condition of depositing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as a pre-condition to continue the interim stay granted by the Tribunal. The said imposition of condition is without any valid reasons and onerous. 13. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned similar orders dated 17-09-2008 passed in M.A. (SARFAESI) Nos. 155, 159, 157, 158, 154, 156 and 160 of 2008. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderaad, is directed to dispose of the securitization applications, without any undue delay, uninfluenced by any of the observations expressed in this order, after giving a reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce any further evidence or contentions, if they choose. It is needless to mention that both the parties can take all pleas and raise contentions as permissible in law before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH _____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR January 20, 2009 Kvr