Supreme Court – Daily Orders
K. Mohan Rao vs V. Ashok Kumar on 16 February, 2026
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 5857/2019
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-09-2018
in WPC No. 42760/2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and The State of Andhra
Pradesh]
K. MOHAN RAO PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
V. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
DIARY NO(S). 17739/2019 (XII-A)
(IA No. 38908/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 38909/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS
IA No. 38910/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 16-02-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. K.V. Simhadri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR
Mr. Ravi S Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv.
Ms. Dolly Nair, Adv.
Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.T., AOR
Mr. Musthafa Atheeq A., Adv.
Ms. Riya Nourin, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. K.V. Simhadri, Sr. Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR
Digitally signed by
JAGDISH KUMAR
Date: 2026.02.19
10:07:26 IST
Reason: Mr. Ravi S Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv.
Ms. Dolly Nair, Adv.
2
Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.T., AOR
Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. M.B. Rama Subba Raju, Adv.
Mr. Gopinathan E.P, Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP (CIVIL) NO.5857/2019 WITH SLP (CIVIL) DIARY NO.17739/2019
1. Delay in filing SLP (C) Diary No.17739/2019 is condoned.
2. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
order dated 17th September, 2018 while disposing of the borrower’s writ
petition1 made the following operative directions:
“While absence of the petitioners’ counsel on the date of
hearing, may possibly be the reason why these contentions
were not examined, the fact remains that the very basis, for
the DRT to set aside the letter of forfeiture dated
08.06.2016, is that the sale had not been confirmed. If the
interim certificate dated 05.07.2012, placed before us by the
respondent-bank, is held to be a sale confirmation letter,
then the order of the DRT, holding that the sale had not
been confirmed, would be wholly unjustified.
As the petitioners’ valuable rights under the SARFAESI Act
would stand violated on non compliance with the statutory
provisions under Section 13(2) and (4) of the SARFAESI Act,
and Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Rules, we consider it
appropriate to set aside the orders passed by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, to the extent they are subjected to
challenge in this writ petition. The matter is remanded to
the Debt Recovery Tribunal for its consideration afresh and
in accordance with law.
While examining the legal contentions urged on behalf of
the petitioners, regarding non-compliance with the
statutory provisions the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall also
1 Writ Petition No.42760 of 2016
3
examine whether or not, in the light of the interim
certificate dated 05.07.2012, the respondent-bank was
justified in forfeiting 25% of the amount deposited by the
auction purchaser by its letter dated 08.06.2016. The
parties on either side are permitted, if they so choose, to
file additional pleadings and documents within two weeks
from today.
Since the S.A, relates to the year 2011 more than 7 years
ago we request the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the
S.A with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later
than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. The parties shall maintain status quo as on
today till the S.A is finally heard and disposed of by the
Debt Recovery Tribunal.”
3. SLP (C) No.5857 of 2019 is at the instance of the petitioner-auction
purchaser, while SLP (C) Diary No.17739/2019 is by the petitioner-borrower.
4. The auction purchaser has assailed the aforesaid order primarily on the
ground that the borrower has been extended undue indulgence by the High
Court.
5. Parties including the secured creditor have been heard and the materials
on record considered.
6. Having regard to the nature of the impugned order, which directs a
remand, we are not inclined to interfere therewith; hence, without expressing
any opinion on merits of the rival claims, both the special leave petitions stand
disposed with a request to the Presiding Officer of the relevant Debt Recovery
Tribunal2 to decide the application of the borrower under Section 17(1) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, as early as possible, but positively within three months
from date of receipt of a copy of this order by granting adequate opportunity of
hearing to the borrower, the security creditor, and the auction purchaser.
2 DRT
4
7. The parties are directed to maintain, status quo, with regard to the nature
and character of the secured asset.
8. We are informed by Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner-auction purchaser that the guarantor is in possession of the
secured asset. The guarantor shall not encumber or alienate such secured asset
till the disposal of the aforesaid application by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
9. To avoid unnecessary delay, we require all the parties to enter
appearance before the DRT on 23rd February, 2026. They shall cooperate with
the DRT to take the proceedings to its logical conclusion within the time frame
stipulated above and thereby secure effective compliance of this order.
10. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(JAGDISH KUMAR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
