THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR DATED: -03-2011 WRIT PETITION Nos. 23052, 23343, 23346 AND 27435 OF 2010 WPMP No. 35765 OF 2010 IN Writ Petition No. 23052 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION No. 23052 OF 2010 Between: M. Rohit Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Recovery Officer, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and two others .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 23052 OF 2010 Between: Smt. Pratima Reddy and two others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Recovery Officer, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 23346 OF 2010 Between: Smt. Pratima Reddy and two others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Recovery Officer, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 27435 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Rohit Energy Power Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 8-2-334/30, road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, rep., by its Director Mr. Harshavardhan Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Andhra Bank, Head Office at 5-9-11, Saifabad, Dr. Patabhi Bhavan, Hyderabad and three others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos. 23052, 23343, 23346 AND 27435 OF 2010 WPMP No. 35765 OF 2010 IN Writ Petition No. 23052 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) All these writ petitions which are interconnected and arise out of same proceedings are heard together and taken up for hearing. Even though the vacate stay petitions are listed, all the counsel requested the Court to dispose of the writ petitions on merits as arguments in the writ petitions as well as the vacate stay petitions are one and the same. Therefore, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Writ Petition Nos. 23052, 23343 and 23346 of 2010 are filed questioning the common order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 14-07-2010 in M.P Nos.13, 17 and 16 respectively in R.P No. 145 of 2001 in O.A No. 212 of 1995 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. In Execution of the orders in O.A No. 212 of 1995 the Indian Bank filed R.P No. 145 of 2001 for recovery of Rs.15,35,37,036.14 ps with accrued interest at 24% per annum compounded quarterly on Rs.8,39,92,417/- from the date of recovery certificate till the date of realization. M.P No. 13 of 2010 is filed for attachment of an amount of Rs.11,54,84,438/- lying in the account of M. Rohit Reddy with Andhra Bank, MLA Colony Branch, Hyderabad and also for issuing prohibitory order against the said Garnishee bank from realizing the said amount or part thereof. M.P No. 15 of 2010 was filed for attachment of an amount of Rs.12,62,85,000/- lying in the account of the said Rohit Reddy with ABN Amro Bank, Banjara Hills Branch and also for issuance of prohibitory order, whereas M.P No. 16 of 2010 is filed for an order to send the amount of Rs.1,08,01,162/- lying to the credit of O.S No. 106 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and M.P No. 17 of 2010 is filed for issuing a direction to the judgment debtors to the decrees passed in O.S Nos. 106, 107 and 108 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judge, Chief City Civil Court, Hyderabad to remit the balance of 50% of the decretal amount payable to the decree holders under the said decrees to the legal heirs of the deceased M. Mohan Reddy to the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. The claim of the Indian Bank in moving the above MPs in the recovery proceedings is that loan facilities were availed to execute contract by late Mohan Reddy. The bank is entitled for the entire proceeds of the decrees obtained by late Mohan Reddy which are now sought to be enforced by his legal heirs and which the bank is entitled to receive from them from out of the estate left by the deceased Mohan Reddy. The amounts receivable by the writ petitioners are now deposited as per the decrees in the above suits against which appeals are filed and pending appeals, the High Court stayed the execution subject to the condition of deposit of 50% of the decretal amount in all the three suits i.e., O.S Nos.106, 107 and 108 of 2007 and the amount deposited in compliance with the conditional order is an estate left by the deceased borrower in the hands of his heirs, the writ petitioners. The bank filed M.P No. 10 of 2010 for attachment of the said decrees and accordingly, the Recovery Officer passed an order for attachment of the said decrees under Rule 27 of II Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1995 and the attachment order was also affected on 21-05-2010. Out of the amount deposited by the judgment debtors to the credit of the above suits, a cheque was issued on 23-02-2010 for an amount of Rs.8,95,00,000/- and another cheque was issued on 22-04-2010 for Rs.2,59,84,438/- in the name of Rohit Reddy and the said cheques were encashed by Rohit Reddy and the said amount of Rs.11,54,84,438/- was lying in his name with the Garnishee Bank i.e., Andhra Bank. Though attachment order was passed on 21-05-2010, the bank noticed that Rohit Reddy encashed cheque for Rs.2,59,84,438/- and that the other cheque dated 23-02-2010 was not encashed and the amount of Rs.12,62,85,600/- lying in the account of Rohit Reddy represents the estate of the deceased Mohan Reddy and the same should be attached. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed all the MPs by a common order. Questioning the same, Writ Petition Nos. 23052, 23343 and 23346 of 2010 are filed. This Court while admitting Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 on 20- 09-2010 granted interim suspension of the common order and pursuant to the same, the writ petitioner in the said writ petition withdrew an amount of Rs.2.18 Crores on 21-09-2010. The bank filed WPMP No. 31929 of 2010 to direct the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 to deposit the amount withdrawn either with the Debts Recovery Tribunal or with the bank immediately contending that writ petitioner filed R.A No. 2 of 2010 against the orders in M.P No. 13 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderaband and it was posted for orders on 08-10-2010 and suppressing the said fact, he filed the said writ petition and obtained interim suspension without serving notice on the Standing Counsel though the bank filed caveat application vide SR No. 88972 of 2010 on 15-07-2010 and under the garb of interim orders, he withdrew the amount of Rs.2.18 Crores and deposited the same to the credit of the account maintained by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27435 of 2010. The Andhra Bank which is the garnishee bank filed WPMP No. 32039 of 2010 and the said petition was ordered on 07-10-2010. The Indian Bank has filed WVMP No. 4658 of 2010 to vacate the orders passed by this Court on 20-09-2010 in WPMP No. 29420 of 2010 and has also filed WPMP No. 35675 of 2010 to implead M/s. Rohit Energy Power Private Limited as on of the respondents to the above writ petition. When WPMP No. 31929 of 2010 came up for hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Indian Bank that the amount of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 has been transferred from account No. 161210100005659 to account No. 161211100000380 in the Andhra bank. This Court directed the said Bank to keep the amount lying to the credit of account No.161210100005659 of the writ petitioner until further orders. On passing of the said order, the Andhra Bank by letter dated 28-10-2010 informed M/s. Rohit Energy Power Private Limited that unless the order dated 07-10-2010 is modified or altered, the bank is not in a position to allow any operations in either of the accounts viz., account No. 161210100005659 and account No.161211100000380. Questioning the same, M/s. Rohit Energy Power Private Limited filed Writ Petition No. 27435 of 2010 stating that since the company is not a party to the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 and as one of the directors of the Company filed the said writ petition the said orders are not binding on it and in the absence of any specific direction or order passed by this Court squeezing of the company’s account, the bank cannot stop the company from operating the account which it is legally entitled to. Therefore, the action of the Andhra Bank in squeezing its account may de declared as arbitrary and illegal and the petitioner Company may be permitted to operate the bank account. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 contends that R.A No. 2 of 2010 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on 08-10-2010 and therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal against the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in R.A No. 2 of 2010 to the appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’). Similarly, the petitioners may be permitted to file revisions against the orders passed in M.P Nos.17 and 16 of 2010 by dismissing Writ Petition No. 23343 and 23346 of 2010 as withdrawn. Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the Indian Bank submits that when the Indian Bank filed caveat and the petitioner having moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing R.A No. 2 of 2010 wherein the Tribunal passed order directing the Recovery Officer not to take further steps to get the amount transferred from the accounts on 13-08-2010 and posted the matter to 27-08-2010, the petitioner without disclosing the said fact or serving notice on the respondent – Bank which filed caveat obtained interim order by suppressing the said fact and withdrew the amount and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. He further submits that an act of Court shall not prejudice the Bank namely granting of interim suspension of the order facilitated the writ petitioner to withdraw the amount and deposit the same to the credit of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27435 of 2010. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that Court has to rectify the injustice done to the bank by transferring the amount to the credit of the account of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 until R.P No. 145 of 2001 is decided by the Tribunal. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27435 of 2010 contends that the petitioner is not a party to Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 as it is a separate entity in which the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 is only a 10% share holder. The amount has not been transferred as claimed by the Indian Bank but cash was withdrawn and was re-deposited to the account of M/s. Rohit Energy Power Private Limited. Even as per the interim order passed by this Court in WPMP No. 31929 of 2010, the Andhra Bank was directed to keep the amount of the writ petitioner in the same account. Therefore, the bank is not justified in issuing the impugned letter squeezing the account and the same is liable to be quashed. It is now fairly well settled that when a statutory appeal is filed questioning the order passed by the Tribunal, writ petition filed questioning the said order cannot be entertained (See Bombay Metropolitan Region vs Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. & Ors[1]). Further, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 filed the writ petition suppressing the factum of filing of an appeal, obtained interim orders, withdrew the amount and now seeks to withdraw the writ petition after the amount has been withdrawn and diverted to the other account. It is fairly well settled that ‘Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit’ is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a safe and certain guide for administration of the law and an unintentional act of Court which prejudices the cause of any party must be rectified. Further it is also well settled that extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court has to be exercised to effectuate the regime of law and not for abrogating it. The High Court cannot ignore law nor can override it. The power under Article 226 is conceived to serve the ends of law/justice and not to transgress them. If the order is obtained by misrepresentation suppressing material and relevant facts or otherwise guilty of misleading Court, the Court while adjudicating may remedy the damage caused to the opposite party by recalling the advantages obtained thereunder and cancel the direction issued. The amount withdrawn from the account of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 is admittedly redeposited to the account of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27435 of 2010 in which the petitioner is also a share holder. This Court while impleading the Andhra Bank directed the said bank to keep the amount of the writ petition in the same account i.e., account No. 161210100005659 until further orders. Since no final orders can be passed as the account holder namely the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27435 of 1020 is not a party to Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010, it can be passed on its impleading after making enquiry. In the circumstances, we allow WPMP No. 35765 of 2010 by impleading the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27435 of 2010 as a party to Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 and direct the parties to not to operate both account numbers i.e., account No. 161210100005659 and 161211100000380 and maintain status quo anti to the date of interim order. The writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 who withdrew the amount on obtaining interim direction is directed to redeposit the amount so withdrawn to account No.161210100005659 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such redeposit only, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23475 of 2010 can operate its account and the amount so deposited to the account of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23052 of 2010 shall have to be continued in the said account until furthers orders are passed in R.P No. 145 of 2001 by the Tribunal on merits. The parties are at liberty to file appeals/revisions against the orders in M.P Nos.16 and 17 of 2010 and further appeal against the orders in R.P No. 2 of 2010 to the appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the Act. Withdrawal of the amount will be subject to the orders to be passed in the recovery proceedings as well as in the appeals. Writ Petition Nos. 23052, 23343 and 23346 of 2010 are accordingly dismissed and Writ Petition No. 27435 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of. A.GOPAL REDDY, J N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 21-03-2011 ks [1] 1995 (1) SCC 642