Prasad Sangula v. The Bank of India

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

Judgment date: 2026-04-24

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-24. Prasad Sangula v. The Bank of India. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

[ 3491 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11538 OF 2026 Between: 1. Prasad Sangula, S/o S. Munaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o H. No. 7-'l-2771374, 411C, B. K. Guda, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038. 2. Krishnaveni Sangula, Wo Prasad Sangula, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o H. No. 7-1 -277 1374, 41 lC. B. K. Guda, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038. ... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Bank of lndia, Asset Recovery Branch, R/o -10-1-1 199/2, PTI Building, 3rd Floor, A. C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Rep. by its Authorised Officer- T. Jagannadham 2. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal - lll, 1st Floor, Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001. ...

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 a Writ of , Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in dismissing l. A. No. 1136 of 2O26 in S. A. No. 80 ot 2026 vide order dated 06. 04. 2026, without properly appreciating the bona fide reasons assigned by the Petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, perverse, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 06. 04. 2026 passed in l. A. No. 1'136 ot2026 in S. A. No. 80 oi2026 by the Respondent No. 2, thereby grant extension of time for two weeks to the Petitioners to pay the remaining balance of Rs 20,00,000^ towards the conditional deposit of Rs. 35,00,000/- as directed by the learned Tribunal in its conditional order dated 2402.

2026 in l. A. No579 ot 2026 by such further period as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. l. A. NO: 1 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 Respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners, including taking physical possession of the schedule property plot bearing No. 4. l/C, House No. 7-1_ 2771374, admeasuring 125 Sq. Yds. , situated at Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, or selling the same, pending disposal of the main S. A. No. 80 ot 2026 before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal - ll, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Ms. T. VlDyA RANI, SC FOR BOI Counsel for the Respondent No.

2: -- The Court made the following: OROER HIGH COURT FOR THE STAT E OF TELAN GANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1 1538 0F 2026 ,t DATE 24. 04. 2026 BETWEEN: Prasad Sangula And Another Petitioners AND The Bank of India And Another . Respondents the Petitioners Mr. Katika Ravinder Rcddy, learned counsel appearrng for Ms. T. Vidhya Rani, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Caveator/ resPondent No l ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justrce Moushumi IJhatLacharya) 1. The petitioners have challenged an order datcd 06. 04 . 2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal- [l at Hyderabad ('DRT] by which an interlocutory application filed by the petitioners for extension o[ time to make payment of 02 20261 was (as per the DRT's order dated 24 Rs. 2O,O0,O0O/- dismissed. 2. The petitioncr Nos.

1 and 2 are the Borrower and Co-borrower, respectively, who obtained a loan for purchase o[a residential flat and secured the loan by wav of an equitable mortgage by depositing the Title Deeds of thd schedule properry. The loan u. as to be repaid in a periodic manner. The petitioners larled to make the rcpayments and filed an S. A. before the DRT lor adjudication of the dispute. The impugned interim order rvas passed in I. A. No. I 136 of 2026 in S. A. No. gO ol. 2026. 3. The pt:ritioners filed I. A,No. S 79 of 2026 in rhe said S. A. for stay of alr further proceedings pursuant to the . Advocate Notice dated 02. O2. 2026 and the e_auction Sale Notice dated 03. 11. 2025. The DRT passed an order in LA. No. 579 of 2026 on 24. 02. 2026 granting interim stay on thc rcspondcnt No. l/the Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, from hking physical possession ol the petition schedule property pursuant to the impugned notice, subject to the petitioners depositing Rs.

35,0O,OOO/-in rhree instalments of Rs. l5,OO,OOO/_, Rs. 10,00,OO0/ and Rs. tO,O0,0O0/_ each, respectively. The first instalment was directed to be deposited within one week from the date of the order, the second instalment with in tn,o r. r,eeks thereafter and the third instalment within two weeks from the F with the date of the deposit of the sccond instalment directly -Bank respondent No. i states that [he 2402 2026 further 4. The order dated petitioners fail vacated in the event the interim stay shall stand directions and that the respondent No l - to comply with the Bank shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law o[ the first instalment 5. Admlttedly, the petitioners paid second and third but were unable to pay the Rs. 15,OO,000/- time' - each rvithin the stipulated instalments of Rs. 10,00,000/ in S A' hled I A N<'r' 1 I36 of 2O26 The petitioners accordingly No.

8oof2026forextensionoftimetopaythesecondandthird by way the DRT dismissed the said t'A of instalments. The 06 04 2026' impugned order dated for the learned counsel appearing 6. We have heard petitioners and the respondent No l-Bank 7. [rarned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits paid the first inslalment of that the petitioners have already collect the outstanding were unable to Rs. 15,O0,0OO/- but thc ancl clcposit thc same within amount of Rs. 20,00,OOO/- \ \\ stipulatcd timcframe . Counsel submits that the petitioners attenlptcd to deposit Rs. g,0o,o00/ _ our oI the balance Rs 20,0O,OOO/ u. ith the respondent No. 1_Bank but that the Bank re [u sed to accept the same. 8 rt is submitted that the petition schedule asset is a rcsrclcntial flat which was mortgaged by way of deposit of Title Deeds to the Bank. It is further submitted that ir_rtervening I-e stivals, such as Ugadi and Ramzan, prevented the petitioners from depositing the second and third instalments.

Counsel for the peritroners submirs that the petitioners are ready to pa), the ba Iancc of Rs. 20. ( )0. 000/ 9. The learncd Standing Counsel appearing for the responden t No. I _Bank submits that the impugned order passed by thc DRT cloes r-rot call for interference since the petitioners failed to deposit the second and third instalments as per the earlicr ordcrs ol thr: DRT. Counsel submits that the responclent No. I Bank has alrcad-y acceptcd LOO,k of the brd amount o[ Rs. I ,43,05,00O / - from the successful bidder on Og. O 1. 2026. 10. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parl res, n e arc inr:linr;d to allow thc Writ petition Ibr rhe fol lou'ing re. l son s. I 1- First, it is undisputed l"hat the petitioners have paid Lhc first instalment of Rs. 15,00,000/-within time. The petitioners also attempted to deposit Rs. 8,00,0OO/-of the balance Rs. 20,00,000/- with the respondent No. l -Bank but the Bank refused to accePt [he same. 12.

Second, we find the reasons given in the Affidavit hled u,ith I. A. No. I 136 ol 2026 to be credible The fact o[ the intervening iestivals, including Ugadi and Ramzan, cannot bc denied. In any event, the petitioners have already collected Rs. 8,0O,000/- o[ the balance Rs 20,00,000/-, *hi; is undisputed by the respondent No. I Bank' 13. Third, the petition schedule property is a residential flat' Hence, the petitioners deserve an equitable consideration from the Court 14. Fourth, the argument of the Bank that the successful auction purchaser has already paid the full bid amount on O8. O1. 2026 cannol be a ground to deny reliel to the petitioncrs since the Bank was represented and contested the earlier I A' filed by the petitioners i. e. , I A. No 579 of 2026, whereby the DRT proceeded [o grant interim stay subject to the petitioncrs \ deposiring Rs. 35,OO,0OO/-in three instalments Admittedly, the crrdcr daLed 24. O2. ,2026 was passed on contest and was not an ex parte order 15. !

-Lrrtl. rcr. the order dated 24. O2. 2026 would ref. lect that the Bank's argumcnt \r/as takcn into consideration and that no objecrion was raised by the Bank regarding the Bank receiving 100% of tht: considcration amount from the auction purchaser. In [act, paragraph 2 of the order dated 24 . O2. 2026 records that counser appcaring for the rcspondent No. r_Bank did not raise anl objection ro the conditional stay of the Advocate Commissioncr,s Notice ar-rd the e-auction Sale Notice. This is significan t. sincc the respondent No. 1-Bank now states that the Ban k received tht_. consideration amount lrom the bidder on 08 O1 . 2026, u hich \{'es prior to rhe DRT,s order dated 24. O2. 2026. 16' Hence, rhe grant of interim stay of the Advocate Notice as u. cll as thc e auction Notice also encompassed the bid money reccivcd by thc Bank. There is no material on record to show that they made any attempt to bring the fact of payment from Lhe auction purchaser to the notice of the DRT on 24. O2.

2026 or at anr timc therczll-tcr. l. l. re fact ol thc Bank rssurng a Sale I Ccrtificate in favour of the auction purchaser was also not brought to the notice of the DRT on 24. 02. 2026. Counsel lor the Bank argued this fact only during the course of arguments in the present Writ Petition. 17. Fifth, the last line of the order dated 24. 02. 2026 passed by the DRT records that the Bank shall be at liberty to proceed in the event oi default on the part o[ lhe petitioners bu[ subject to the outcome of the S. A. filed by the petitioners. Hence, refusing thc petitioners' prayer for extension to pay thc outstanding amount oi Rs 20,O0,000/-would in effect entirely frustrate the S. A. 18. The impugned order passed by the DRT on 06 04 '2026 calls for interlerencc.

The Iast paragraph of the impugned order makes it clear that the only reason for refusing the petitioners' application for extension is that the petitioners requested extension for an unspecified period of time The DRT has not given any other reasons for dismissing the petitioners'I A The that the petitioners have DRT should have taken into account already paid the fiirst instalment to show their bona fides' sincc 19. We are also convinced of the petitioners' bona ftdes Court that the petitioners counsel has repeatedly informed the are ready to pav thc outstanclrng balance of Rs. 2O,OO,0 OO / - in Cour[ on an assigncd date, including the very next dav after conclusion of tht: hearing in the present matter. 20 W p. No. 1 I . 538 ot 2026 is accordingly allowed and disposed of bl sctting asidc thc ordcr dated 06. 04. 2026. 21 The petitioners shal deposit rhe amount before the DRT bv 28. 04. 2026 Needless to sa,v, the interim stay granted on 24. O2.

20'26 shall continuc subjcct to such deposit bcing made bv ryav of a Dcmar. rd Draft (DD)/RTGS. The lnterim stay granrcd by the DRT on 24. 02. 2026 shall continue upon complianr:c of this dircctron. AII conrrected applications are rlis pr rsed of. assrS? truBiXE#! 3ffiX //TRUE COPYII '/-- SECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Authorised Officer- T Jagannadham, Bank of lndia, Asset Recoverv Branch, R/o -'10-'l-1 199t2, p Tl Building, 3rd Floor, A. C. Guards, HyderaOaJ'- 500 004 2. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal _ il|, 1st Floor, Triveni Complex, Abids Hyderabad _ 5OO 001. 3. One CC to SRt KATTKA RAVTNDER REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 4 One CC ro Ms T VtDyA RAN|, SC rOn eOr'tOFUdt 5. Two CD Copies PSK PSK ry/ CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 2410412026 rlATI o A a . 1. i c:> I' J c \l$''itl\ \ L) t t . ':) t"' ORDER ---. -. ,,-t. WP. No. 11538 of 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS r1b

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.