Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 8901

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION Nos.15238, 15249, 23312 AND 23380 OF 2025

DATE OF ORDER: 01.04.2026

W.P.No.15238 of 2025:
Between:
M/s.Mennonite Brethren Property Association of India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director/Authorized Signatory
.....Petitioner
AND
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for Hyderabad Jurisdiction) at Kolkata, Kolkata, West Bengal and 14 Others
.....Respondents

W.P.No.15249 of 2025:
Between:
M/s.Mennonite Brethren Property Association of India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director/Authorized Signatory
.....Petitioner
AND
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for Hyderabad Jurisdiction) at Kolkata, Kolkata, West Bengal and 14 Others
.....Respondents

W.P.No.23312 OF 2025
Between:
M/s.Mennonite Brethren Property Association of India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director/Authorized Signatory
...Petitioner
AND
Punjab National Bank,
Rep. by its Authorised Officer

W.P.No.23380 OF 2025

Mr. Asad Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Mr. P.B.A Srinivasan, learned counsel representing Mr. E.Venkata Siddartha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 to 13.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Asad Hussain
For the Respondents: P.B.A Srinivasan, E.Venkata Siddartha, Katika Ravinder Reddy

Legal proceedings on behalf of a company must be instituted by an authorized person based on a valid Board Resolution; the absence of such lawful authorization is an incurable defect that renders the proceedings non-maintainable.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 2013 - Sections 173(3), 174, 179 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022 - Section 17 - Requirement of valid Board Resolution for legal representation - Legal proceedings filed by a Company must be instituted by a person duly authorized by the Board of Directors -

(B) Maintainability - Absence of valid authorization is a fundamental defect - Where the authorization relied upon is contrary to statutory records and lacks proper quorum, the petition is not maintainable. (Paras 17, 26, 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner Company, purportedly represented by its authorized signatories, challenged orders passed by appellate tribunals regarding e-auction proceedings of its property. Respondents challenged the maintainability of these writ petitions, alleging that the individuals representing the company lacked valid authorization, had fabricated board resolutions, and were not authorized directors at the relevant times.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the documents relied upon for authorization were inconsistent with company statutory records, lacked necessary board resolutions, failed to meet quorum requirements under the Articles of Association, and were previously declared invalid by judicial authorities. The individuals lacked the locus standi to institute proceedings on behalf of the company.

Issues: Whether the writ petitions filed by individuals claiming to be authorized representatives of the company are maintainable in the absence of valid board resolutions and legal authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A company can only be represented by a person authorized through a validly passed board resolution in accordance with the Companies Act and Articles of Association; absence of such authorization is an incurable defect rendering the legal proceedings non-maintainable. Result : Writ Petitions dismissed.

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

W.P.Nos.15238 and 15429 of 2025

1. These Writ Petitions have been filed assailing a Common Order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (‘DRAT’) dated 16.05.2025 allowing Appeals (Nos.2 and 3 of 2024) filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 (Banks) and the respondent Nos.7 to 15 (Auction Purchasers) in W.P.No.15238 of 2025. The DRAT set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad (‘DRT’) dated 06.12.2023 in S.A.No.116 of 2019.

2. The petitioner claims to be a Company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956, being represented by its Authorised Signatory Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla, who claims to be the Director of the petitioner. Paragraph 3 of the Writ Petitions states that Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla has been fully authorized by the Board of Directors of the petitioner to file the Writ Petition on behalf of the petitioner vide Board Resolution dated 06.08.2021. The petitioner-Company claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Ac.57-24 guntas in Sy.Nos.36, 37, 58 and 59 of Kaverempet Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

3. The Writ Petitions state that the petitioner approached the respondent Banks for a term loan of Rs.38 crores for establishing a Medical College at Jadcherla. The petitioner leased the land in favour of the respondent No.6/Governing Council of the Conference of Mennonite Brethren Church of India for the purpose of development of a hospital. The respondent No.6 established an operating facility at the scheduled property but the said property was subsequently declared as a Non-Performing Asset. The respondent Banks thereafter issued an e-auction Sale Notice on 04.08.2018 and the Consortium of Banks conducted an auction on 07.01.2019 pursuant to which the respondent Banks also executed a Sale Certificate in favour of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 in respect of the scheduled property.

4. The petitioner filed S.A.No.166 of 2019 challenging the e-auction Notice and the auction. The DRT allowed the said SA on 06.12.2023 and set aside the e-auction Sale Notice as well as the e-auction conducted on 07.01.2019. The DRT also set aside the consequential Sale Certificate dated 04.04.2019 issued by the respondent Banks in favour of the auction purchasers.

5. The respondent Banks and the auction purchasers challenged the DRT’s order by way of two separate Appeals. The DRAT allowed both the Appeals and set aside the DRT’s order dated 06.12.2023 and also dismissed SA No.166 of 2019 filed by the writ petitioner. The Common Order of the DRAT dated 16.05.2025 has been assailed by the Borrower in the four Writ Petitions before us.

6. The parties in the instant Writ Petitions are as follows:

The writ petitioner is the borrower. The three lender banks are respondent Nos.3 to 5. The Auction Purchasers are the respondent Nos.7 to 15.

W.P.Nos.15238 and 15429 of 2025: These Writ Petitions question the authority of Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla

7. Learned counsel for the respondent Banks has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petitions. According to the counsel, the Writ Petitions should be dismissed since Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla who filed the Writ Petitions claiming to be the Authorised Representative of the petitioner-Company is guilty of fabricating the alleged authorization letters and Board Resolutions of the petitioner-Company and also be held guilty for forgery on account of making false statements before this Court.

8. We have heard counsel appearing for the respondent Banks on the issue of maintainability and also the reply of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Auction Purchasers who support the case of the Banks. We have also perused the documents relied upon by the parties in relation to the plea of maintainability of the Writ Petitions.

9. From the documents including the Affidavits in the Writ Petitions, it is evid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document