Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, G. Corp Lotus Mall Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai, in IA No.236/2024 in AIR No.1854/2023 and IA No.714/2024 in AIR No.84/2024. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's application for intervention under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The petitioner sought to be impleaded in proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) initiated by Axis Bank Limited against Lotus Shopping Centers Private Limited (under liquidation) and Anushka Construction Private Limited. The respondents, including Axis Bank and the authorized officer, opposed the petition, arguing that the order was appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and that the writ petition was not maintainable. The court examined the nature of the order and held that an order rejecting an intervention application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is not an 'interim order' under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The court reasoned that the term 'interim order' in Section 18 refers to orders passed during the pendency of an appeal before the DRAT, not orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in original proceedings. Since the impugned order was passed by the DRT in original applications, the remedy of appeal under Section 18 was available to the petitioner. The court further noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the DRAT, which was pending. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the DRAT. The court also directed the DRAT to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months.
Headnote
A) SARFAESI Act - Appeal - Maintainability - Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether an order rejecting an application for intervention under Order I Rule 10 CPC is an 'interim order' under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that such an order is not an interim order under Section 18, and therefore an appeal lies against such order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition challenging the order was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order rejecting an application for intervention under Order I Rule 10 CPC is an 'interim order' under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, and whether an appeal lies against such order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the appeal already filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The DRAT is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months.
Law Points
- Maintainability of appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act
- Order I Rule 10 CPC
- Interim order
- Intervention application
- Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (01) 8
WP No. 1059 of 2025 (GM-DRT)
Justice Krishna S Dixit, Justice G Basavaraja
Sri. Manu P Kulkarni, Sri. Shristi Widge (for petitioner); Sri. Rayappa Y, George Joseph (for C/R1); Sri. Aniketh B C (for R2); Sri. G L Vishwanath, Senior Counsel for Smt. Manasa B Rao (for C/R4)
G. Corp Lotus Mall Private Limited
Axis Bank Limited, The Authorized Officer, Lotus Shopping Centers Private Limited (Under Liquidation), Anushka Construction Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejecting an application for intervention under Order I Rule 10 CPC in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the DRAT, Chennai, in IA No.236/2024 in AIR No.1854/2023 and IA No.714/2024 in AIR No.84/2024, and for other reliefs.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application for intervention under Order I Rule 10 CPC was rejected by the DRAT, and the petitioner challenged that order by way of writ petition.
Previous Decisions
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, passed the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 rejecting the petitioner's intervention application.
Issues
Whether an order rejecting an application for intervention under Order I Rule 10 CPC is an 'interim order' under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether an appeal lies against such order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the impugned order is not an interim order under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and therefore no appeal lies, and the writ petition is maintainable.
The respondents argued that the order is appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and the writ petition is not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
An order rejecting an application for intervention under Order I Rule 10 CPC is not an 'interim order' under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The term 'interim order' in Section 18 refers to orders passed during the pendency of an appeal before the DRAT, not orders passed by the DRT in original proceedings. Therefore, an appeal lies against such order before the DRAT under Section 18, and a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The order rejecting an application for intervention under Order I Rule 10 CPC is not an 'interim order' under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
The remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is available to the petitioner against the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application for intervention under Order I Rule 10 CPC before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in original applications under the SARFAESI Act. The DRT rejected the application. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, which also rejected the intervention application by order dated 13.12.2024. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court heard the matter and reserved orders, and on 29.01.2025, dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.
Acts & Sections
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Section 18
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 10
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
