IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) V TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16295 OF 2024 Between: M/s Hari Cotton Traders, Rep by its Proprietor, Golla Haridas Yadav, S/o. Golla Lakshmana Aged about 63 yrs, Occ Business, R/o. D.No. 15/117-A, Victoria Peta, Adoni, Kumool District, Andhra Pradesh, 518301. ...Petitioner AND Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Rep by its Authorised Officer, Registered office 27, BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051, and Branch Office at D.No.29-4-19, Kodandarami Reddy Street, Governerpet Branch, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh- 520002. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the may nature of Writ of Mandamus the action of the respondent/Bank in declaring the loan account of the petitioner as NPA on 16-05-2023 without notice to the petitioner even before the expiry of 90 days and consequently initiating the proceedings under Securitization Act vide Notice dated 09-06-2023 under section 13(2) of the Act, Notice dated 14-08-2023 under section 13(4) of the Act, notice prior to sale under Rule 8 dated 30-08-2023 and the orders passed by the DRT-II in LA. No. 84 of 2024 in S.A. No. 397 of 2023 on 16-01-2024 and the action of the respondent in preventing the petitioner to operate the business is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to run its factory by considering the representation dated 12-07-2024 by further directing the respondent-Bank not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and the Mortgage properties. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 respondent to permit the petitioner to run its factory by considering the representation dated 12-07-2024 by further directing the respondent-Bank not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and the Mortgage properties, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim order dated 30.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No. 16295 of2024 and dismiss the writ petition with costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO * Counsel for the Respondents: M BALANAGA SRINIVAS The Court made the following order: % APHC010322532024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Bench Sr.No:-123 [3483] QMS MM WRIT PETITION NO; 16295 of 2024 Hari Cotton Traders ...Petitioner Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Respondent ********** Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao Mr. M. Balanaga Srinivas Advocate for Respondent: CORAM ;THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : T**’ January, 2025. DATE PC : The present petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 16.01.2024, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Hyderabad in I.A.No.84 of 2024 in S.A.No.397 of 2023. 2. The order came to be passed on the application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim relief, wherein the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rupees Three Crores in three equal installments of One Crore each. The order further observed that in the event of failure of compliance of any of the conditions contained in the said order, the order would stand vacated and that the bank would be at liberty to proceed further, in accordance with the Rules. 2 % HCJ & RCJ WP_16295_2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order the face of it, was a non-speaking order, inasmuch as none of the grounds raised in the Securitization Application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal were considered for the purposes of either rejecting or granting the interim relief. 3. on 4. The contention of the petitioner is that it had all along been paying regularly the installments, till 28.02.2023, beyond which, on account of unavoidable circumstances, payment could not be made. It is the case of the petitioner that in accordance with the R.B.I. Circular, dated 01.04.2022, the account of the petitioner could not have been declared as an N.P.A. before the expiry of 90 days, and that despite this being urged, it was not considered by the D.R.T. 5. 6. On the face of it, the order impugned does not reflect that any of the contentions raised in the S.A. before the D.R.T., or otherwise urged before it during the course of the hearing, were considered. On the other hand, the order impugned merely states that the direction to deposit Rupees Three Crores in three equal installments was being issued in the “interest of justice”. In our opinion, the order impugned is clearly a non speaking order. While we do not deny that the D.R.T. could have straight away rejected the grant of interim relief and dismissed the I.A. bearing No.84 . , of 2024, if there was no merit in the same, yet, if there was any merit at all, it required the passing of some interim order in favour of the petitioner, then, the 3 HCJ & RCJ WP_16295_2024 same ought to have been discussed by the D.R.T. and reflected in the order impugned. 7. Needless to say, that an order passed by an authority needs to be speaking, with a view to enable the higher fora to judge as to whether, while passing such an order the authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case, as also the law in the correct perspective. A reasoned order enables the competent higher fora to come to a conclusion as to whether the principles of the natural justice have been fully complied with. 8. In our opinion, the order impugned does not satisfy the aforesaid requirement. We, therefore, direct the D.R.T. to pass an appropriate speaking order in I.A. No.84 of 2024 in S.A.No.397 of 2023, after hearing the petitioner. I.A. be disposed of by the D.R.T. within a period of two (02) weeks from today. Till such time as the needful is done, status quo be maintained with regard to the schedule property. 9. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. no SOI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Authorised Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Registered office 27, BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051, and Branch Office at D.No.29-4-19, Kodandarami Reddy Street, Governerpet Branch, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520002. 2. One CC to Sri. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. M Balanaga Srinivas Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies GSC es HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.16295 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS