Telangana High Court
M/S Mennonite Brethren Property … vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 1 April, 2026
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
2
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
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.
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
3
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
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
4
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
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
5
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
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 evident that certain facts are undisputed. The
undisputed facts are as follows:
10. W.P.No.1230 of 2019 was filed by Dr.Margaret Anuradha
Perumalla claiming to be the Vice-President of the petitioner
Company and challenging the e-auction Sale of the Company’s
property by the Consortium of Banks. Two more Writ Petitions i.e.,
W.P.Nos.1343 and 147 of 2019 were filed on the same issue one by
the petitioner Company and the other by a different entity. These
Writ Petitions also question the auction initiated by the Banks. All
6
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
the three Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court by a Common
Order dated 28.02.2019. The said Common Order contains certain
observations on the authorization given to Dr.Margaret Anuradha
Perumalla. The High Court found that the Writ Petition of the
petitioner Company was filed by Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla
who claimed to be the Vice-President-cum-Authorised Signatory of
the Company but the Vakalat did not bear the rubber stamp either
of the Company or of the Vice-President. The Vakalatnama in
W.P.No.1230 of 2019 was found to be signed by Dr. Margaret
Anuradha Perumalla but without a rubber stamp or seal
corroborating her position as the Vice-President or the Authorized
Signatory of the petitioner Company. The letter of authorization
given in favour of Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla was not on
record. The Resolution Letters authorizing Dr.Margaret Anuradha
Perumalla was also not filed in the Court. The Court accordingly
agreed with the contention of the Syndicate Bank that there was
no evidence of authorization in favour of Dr.Margaret Anuradha
Perumalla in W.P.No.1230 of 2019.
11. Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla challenged the dismissal of
W.P.No.1230 of 2019 before the Supreme Court by way of Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No.7305 of 2019 and the same was dismissed
on 05.04.2019. Thereafter, Mr.P.A. John filed S.A.No.166 of 2019
7
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
before the DRT challenging the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by
the parties. The SA filed by Mr. P.A. John was based on the
authorization dated 02.04.2019 issued by Dr.Margaret Anuradha
Perumalla who claimed to be the President and GPA Holder of the
petitioner Company. No resolution of the Board of Company was
filed in support of the alleged Authorisation.
12. It subsequently came to light that Dr. Margaret Anuradha
Perumalla was neither the President nor the Director of the
petitioner Company at the time of giving the Authorisation Letter to
P.A. John on 02.04.2019.
13. Mr. P.A. John filed I.A (No.2679 of 2019) in S.A.No.166 of
2019 based on another Authorization Letter which was brought on
record before the DRT. This Authorization Letter was also dated
02.04.2019 and was issued by Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla in
the capacity of President and GPA Holder of the petitioner
Company. The DRT dismissed I.A.No.2679 of 2019 by an order
dated 28.06.2019 by observing that the fate of the SA would
depend on the validity of the Authorization Letter issued by
Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla. It is also observed that the SA
would be in inherent and incurable defect if the SA was filed based
on the Authorisation Letter issued by an incompetent person.
8
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
Accordingly, the Tribunal partly dismissed the IA with regard to
receipt of the Authorization Letter dated 02.04.2019 issued by P.B.
Arnold, who is the father of Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla.
14. P.A. John filed W.P.No.15036 of 2019 against the order
dated 28.06.2019 passed by the DRT in S.A.No.166 of 2019. The
said Writ Petition was dismissed on 19.07.2019. While dismissing
the Writ Petition, the Court observed that the petitioner Company
would have to take necessary steps before the Tribunal to establish
its claim that S.A.No.166 of 2019 was maintainable. However, the
petitioner Company did not challenge the order dated 19.07.2019.
15. Thereafter, Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla filed four
applications i.e., I.A. IR Nos.1282, 1283, 1284 and 1285 of 2021
before the DRT for being recognized as the Authorized
Representative of the petitioner Company by annexing a Board
Resolution dated 06.08.2021. This Resolution was signed by three
Directors, two of them were Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla and
her father P.A. John.
16. Admittedly, the Article of Association consideration of the
petitioner Company requires a minimum strength of seven
Directors to form the Board of the Company. The DRT rejected the
I.A. IRs by its Common Order dated 31.10.2022. The DRT
9
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
observed that Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla authorized a
person to file the SA and now the self-same person wants to
represent the Company on her won and has authorized herself
along with two other members. The DRT also found that the
authorization was not given on a proper letter head and the Board
Resolution dated 06.08.2021 was also not with the Full Body of the
Committee Members as required by the Articles of Association of
the petitioner’s Company.
17. Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla challenged the order of
the DRT dated 31.10.2022 before the DRAT by way of Appeal
No.121 of 2022. The said Appeal was dismissed by the DRAT on
20.04.2023. Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla challenged the
order of the DRAT dated 20.04.2023 before this Court by way of
W.P.No.11746 of 2023. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on
14.07.2023 with the observation that only 3 Directors have signed
the Resolution dated 06.08.2021 and that none of the other
Directors had knowledge of the said Board Resolution; neither was
the said Board Resolution ratified. Hence, there was absence of a
proper quorum. It was further held that the Board Resolution is
invalid under sections 173(3) and 174 of The Companies Act, 2013
and also contrary to Clause-9 of the Articles of Association of the
petitioner Company and that the petitioner showing herself as
10
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
Authorized Signatory of the petitioner Company vide Resolution
dated 06.08.2021 is not valid in the eye of law.
18. Dr. Margaret Anuradha Perumalla filed Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No.16177 of 2023 against the order of the High Court
dated 14.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.11746 of 2023. The SLP was
dismissed on 07.08.2023. Against the said order, Dr.Margaret
Anuradha Perumalla filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA
No.2162 of 2023 in SLP (C) No.16177 of 2023). The Application
was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.10.2023.
19. Significantly, Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla has filed the
present Writ Petitions challenging the Common Order passed by
the DRAT dated 16.05.2025 again claiming to be the Authorized
Representative of the petitioner Company on the strength of the
Board Resolution dated 06.08.2021. As stated above, the High
Court in its order dated 14.07.2023 in W.P.No.11746 of 2023 had
categorically declared that the said Board Resolution dated
06.08.2021 was invalid. It is also relevant that the Supreme Court
did not interfere with the finding given by the High Court with
regard to the invalidity of the Board Resolution dated 06.08.2021.
20. Hence, the finding of the High Court has attained finality.
We do not find any merit in the contentions of counsel appearing
11
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
for the appellant that the issue of authorization is insignificant and
that the Writ Court nevertheless should adjudicate on the
controversy on merits. The contentions of the appellants made in
the present Writ Petitions with regard to authorization were in fact
also urged before the DRAT. The DRAT considered the rival
contentions correctly and came to the conclusion that the
Securitization Applicant (writ petitioner before this Court) was not
properly represented through the authorized persons and the
Securitization Appeals under section 17 of The Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2022 were hence not legally maintainable.
21. We are of the considered view that the Affidavits filed in the
Writ Petitions by Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla and by Mr.P.A.
John cannot pass muster in the absence of a valid authorization
by the petitioner Company. The undisputed facts placed before us
also show that the genuineness of the authorization relied upon by
the petitioner is in serious doubt. The lack of authenticity is
reinforced by the fact that Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla was
neither the President nor the Director of the petitioner Company as
on 02.04.2019 which was the basis of filing S.A.No.166 of 2019
before the DRT by Mr.P.A. John. It is also admitted that no
resolution of the petitioner Company was filed in support of the
12
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
said authorization. This was in fact the second instance when the
genuineness of the document filed by Mr.P.A.John and
Dr.Margaret Anuradha Perumalla were called to question and
decided against her.
W.P.Nos.23312 and 23380 of 2025: These Writ Petitions
question the authority of Mr. P.A.John.
22. The respondent Nos.1 – 3 have also argued on the
maintainability of W.P.Nos.23312 and 23380 of 2025. The
respondents contend that Mr.P.A.John who claims to be the
authorized representative of the petitioner Company, does not have
any valid or subsisting authority to represent the petitioner
Company or file the Writ Petitions on behalf of the petitioner
Company. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 – 3
submits that the Board Resolution dated 05.08.2019 relied on by
Mr.P.A.John is a fabricated document and makes him liable for
appropriate action. Counsel has placed relevant documents in
support of his submissions.
23. Article 9 – ‘Board of Directors’ – stipulates that the Board of
Directors of the Company (the petitioner herein) shall be a
minimum of seven and a maximum of thirteen directors. (Clause i.
of Article 9). Article 9 does not mention any nomenclature of
13
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
‘General Director’. The Companies Act, 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’) also
does not have any provision/description of ‘General Director’. The
expression ‘General Director’ assumes importance since the
authorization dated 02.04.2019 produced by Mr. P.A. John
mentions that Mr. P.A. John is a ‘General Director’ of the petitioner
Company and is authorized to represent the petitioner before
various judicial forums by filing cases on behalf of the petitioner.
The authorisation has been given by one Dr. P.B. Arnold M.S.
24. Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 – 3 submits that the
petitioner Company had only three Directors at the relevant point
of time i.e., as on 02.04.2019 whereas the authorisation only
mentions Dr. P.B. Arnold M.S. as the President and General Power
of Attorney for the petitioner Company. The authorisation does not
refer to any of the other Directors as on 02.04.2019 as provided
under Article 9 of the Articles of Association of the petitioner
Company. Moreover, the Minutes of Meeting of the Board of
Directors of the meeting held on 05.08.2019 records that the
Company had eleven Directors as on 05.08.2019 and that Mr. P.A.
John was one of the Directors who signed the resolution. The said
Minutes of Meeting are however contrary to the statutory records
of the Company as maintained under the provisions of the 2013
Act. The statutory records of the Company for the Financial Year
14
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 reflects that there were only three
Directors of the Company in that Financial Year as opposed to the
eleven Directors reflected in the Board Meeting held on 05.08.2019
and relied upon by the petitioner.
25. Hence, the Minutes of Meeting dated 05.08.2019 produced
by the petitioner and the letter of authorisation dated 02.04.2019
are contrary to the petitioner’s own records. This Court hence
finds substance in the argument made on behalf of the respondent
Nos.1 – 3 that the petitioner Company did not have eleven
Directors at the relevant point of time and the description of
Mr. P.A. John as ‘General Director’ of the Company as evidenced
by the Minutes of Meeting dated 05.08.2019 lack factual basis.
26. Section 179 of the 2013 Act – ‘Powers of Board’ empowers
the Board of Directors of a Company to exercise all such powers
and to do all such acts, as the Company is authorised to exercise
and do subject to the provisions contained in the Memorandum or
Articles of the Company (section 179(1) and the proviso thereto,
respectively). Hence, the person representing the Company must
either be a Director of the Company as on the relevant date.
In other words, the suit/proceeding on behalf of the Company
15
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
must be instituted by an authorised person who is competent
under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
27. Mr. P.A. John has not placed any resolution passed by the
Board of Directors of the Company authorizing him to institute the
Writ Petitions or any resolution ratifying the decision taken on
behalf of the Company authorizing Mr. P.A. John to represent the
petitioner Company and file the Writ Petitions. As stated above,
the authorisation letter is given by only one Director and does not
reflect the resolution being taken on behalf of all the Directors of
the Board as on 02.04.2019. The authorisation letter is also vague
to the extent of not mentioning the present Writ Petitions and only
stating “various judicial forums” in support of the alleged
authorisation. A valid authorisation is a statutory requirement
and cannot be presumed in the absence of a valid Board
Resolution.
28. Order III of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘) relates
to Recognized Agents and Pleaders. Order III Rule 1 relates to
appearance, application or act in or to any Court authorized by law
to be made or done by a party in such Court, except where
otherwise expressly provided by law, be made or done by the party
in person, or by his recognized agent or by a Pleader appearing,
16
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
applying or acting on his behalf. Consequently, the institution of
proceedings on behalf of the Company must specifically be
authorized by a valid Board Resolution. Such Authority cannot
merely be presumed from a person’s designation as ‘General
Director’ of the Company as on the date of authorisation.
29. It must also be stated that the argument that the petitioners
do not have any alternative or efficacious remedy save and except
approaching the writ Court by filing the present Writ Petitions
under Article 226 of the Constitution lacks substance. Nothing
prevented the petitioners from producing valid authorizations given
by the Board of Directors of the petitioners Company in a duly
constituted Board Meeting as provided under the 2013 Act as well
as Articles of Association of the petitioner Company. In the
absence of such authorization, the Writ Petitions cannot be
admitted or held to be maintainable in the absence of such
authorization. The Court cannot overlook the fact that the Writ
Petitions were filed under the Seal and Stamp of the petitioner
Company despite the fact that Mr. P.A. John was neither a Director
of the Company at the relevant point of time nor had any lawful
authority to represent the Company or used its Seal and Stamp as
‘Director’. In essence, Mr. P.A. John affixed his signature without
being authorized by the petitioner Company under a Board
17
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
Resolution which appears to be fabricated and without being a
Director of the petitioner Company. Section 179(3) of the 2013 Act
relating to ‘Powers of Board’ enumerates the powers which can be
exercised by the Board of Directors of a Company on behalf of the
Company by means of Resolutions passed at the meetings of the
Board. Since the purported authorization dated 02.04.2019 is not
supported by a valid Board Resolution, it naturally follows that
Mr. P.A. John did not have the necessary statutory backing to
represent the petitioner Company.
30. Moreover, the absence of a valid authorization is not a
curable defect. In any event, the petitioner Company failed to give
any cogent or credible reason as to why Mr.P.A. John was
permitted to represent the Company despite not having the locus
standi to do so. As stated above, both the Letter of Authorisation
dated 02.04.2019 as well as the handwritten Board Minutes dated
05.08.2019 reflecting 11 Directors including Mr.P.A. John, are
contrary to the statutory records filed by the petitioner Company
itself from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 showing that the petitioner
had only 3 Directors at the relevant point of time and that Mr.P.A.
John was not a Director from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020.
18
MB,J & GPK,J
W.P.No.15238 of 2025 & Batch
31. We are hence constrained to hold that both sets of Writ
Petitions, namely, W.P.Nos.15238 and 15249 of 2025 (filed by Dr.
Margaret Anuradha Perumalla) and 23312 and 23380 of 2025
(filed by Mr. P.A. John), are not maintainable and should be
dismissed on that ground. Neither Dr. Margaret Anuradha
Perumalla nor Mr. P.A. John had the legal capacity or competence
to represent the petitioner Company at the relevant point of time.
32. W.P.Nos.15238, 15249, 23312 and 23380 of 2025, along
with all connected applications, are accordingly dismissed as not
maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
DATE: 01.04.2026
TJMR/BMS
