SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 25208

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
M/s.Mansarovar Pearls (India) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
WP 15369/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD

* * *

WRIT PETITION Nos.15369 and 24372 of 2025

W.P.No.15369 of 2025

Between:

1. M/s.Mansarovar Pearls (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others …. Petitioners.

VERSUS

1. Canara Bank, rep. by Authorised Officer and others …..

W.P.No.24372 of 2025

1. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal …. Petitioner.

VERSUS

1. Canara Bank, rep. by Authorised Officer and others …

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

___________________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

* THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR + WRIT PETITION Nos.15369 and 24372 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

%Dated 26.09.2025 # Between:

W.P.No.15369 of 2025 Between:

1. M/s.Mansarovar Pearls (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others …. Petitioners.

VERSUS

1. Canara Bank, rep. by Authorised Officer and others …..

W.P.No.24372 of 2025

1. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal …. Petitioner.

VERSUS

1. Canara Bank, rep. by Authorised Officer and others …

! Counsel for Petitioners in W.P.No.15369/2025 : Sri Avinash Desai, Learned Senior Counsel for Sri P.V.Suryanarayana ^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 WP No.15369/2025 : Sri B.Shiva Ram Sharma ! Counsel for Petitioners in W.P.No.24372/2025 : Sri Sharad Sanghi ^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 WP No.24372/2025 : Sri B.Shiva Ram Sharma Contd < GIST :

> HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred :

1. 1980(Supp) SCC 420

2. 2018 SCC Online Hyd 121 3. 1962 SCC Online SC 142

4. (2014) 14 SCC 77

5. 2025 SCC Online SC 1927

6. (2016) 4 SCC 696 7. (1994) 2 SCC 753 8. (2024) 2 SCC 362

9. 2024 SCC Online SC 1764

10. (2017) 6 SCC 770 11. (2004) 8 SCC 671 12. AIR 1974 SC 1331

13. MANU/TN/4080/2021

14. (2015) 3 SCC 624 15. (2024) 2 SCC 362 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.15369 and 24372 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar Since, the issues raised in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

W.P.No.15369 of 2025

2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners/principal borrowers assailing the judgment dated 05.02.2025 passed in Appeal No.20 of 2024 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (DRAT), which is preferred against the order dated 08-01-2024 in Review Petition No.3 of 2023 which was filed against the common order dated 22.05.2023 in Securitization Application (SA) No.87 of 2021 and Transfer Securitization Application (TSA) No.4 of 2021 (Old S.A.No.42/2021) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Hyderabad (DRT).

W.P.No.24372 of 2025

3. This Writ Petition is filed by the auction-purchaser of ‘A’ schedule property seeking declaration of the action of the respondent No.1 Bank in not delivering the physical possession of the property bearing Shop No.20 situated at ground floor of ‘Bhagyalaxmi Commercial Complex’ admeasuring 162.50 sq. ft. situated at Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad as per the registered Sale Certificate bearing Doc.No.1250 of 2023 dated 12.06.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, with a consequential direction to Respondent-

Bank to deliver physical possession of the said property to the petitioner.

4. The facts emanated from the record in W.P.No.15369 of 2025 are that the petitioner No.1 is a manufacturer of jewellery containing gold, silver, precious metals and semi-precious stones, and during the course of business, the 1st petitioner availed original and renewed credit facilities from the 1st respondent Bank from time to time. The cash credit limit allowed by the 1st respondent Bank was Rs.40 crores. Subsequently, it was reduced to Rs.35.35 crores vide Sanction Letter dated 06.12.2019 against the release of the mortgaged properties worth Rs.4.61 crores.

5. On default, the Respondent-Bank issued demand notice

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top