IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8556/2017 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
MRS.ASHWINI SHETTY W/O. MR.SUJITH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.W-377, EAST MAIN ROAD ANNA NAGAR, WEST EXTENSION CHENNAI- 600 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI S.NANDIHAL AND SRI AJAY SHANKAR RAO, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. CANARA BANK A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION & TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT #112, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 002 AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT #25, SHANKAR NAYARANA BUILDING M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 001 REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN 2. SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956] HAVING ITS REGISTERED/CONTROLLING OFFICE AT: 12TH FLOOR, S.N.TOWERS 25/2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 001 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR 3. MR.MANOHAR SHETTY S/O. LATE NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 13TH MAIN 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE- 560 034 4. MRS.HARINI SHETTY W/O. MANOHAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 13TH MAIN 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE- 560 034 5. M/S.GHATAPRABHA AGRO FARMS PVT. LTD.
[A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956] PLOT NO.3892, HMT HILLS 2ND VENTURE, OPP.JNTU COLLEGE KUKKATPALLY HYDERABAD- 500 072 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR 6. M/S.MANDARAGIRI GREENFIELDS PRIVATE LIMITED [A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956] FLAT NO.102, SRI RAMANA ENCLAVE MADHURA NAGAR, S.R.NAGAR POST HYDERABAD- 500 045 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR 7. M/S.DRONAGIRI FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED [A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956] FLAT NO.303, SRI RAMANA ENCLAVE MADHURA NAGAR, S.R.NAGAR POST HYDERABAD- 500 045 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH FOR SRI HARIDASS BHAT.V., ADVOCATES FOR C/R1; MS.MEDHA RAO FOR SRI SHREYAS JAYASIMHA, ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R4;
SMT.BHARGHAVI DEV.K, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2017 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU ON I.A.NO.1961/2016 IN O.A.NO.383/2013 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkatesh, learned Counsel appearing for caveat/respondent No.1, Ms.Medha Rao, learned Counsel for Sri Shreyas Jayasimha, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Ms.Bharghavi Dev.K. learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7.
2. Petition is admitted and heard with the consent of the parties and the same is taken up for hearing.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer by which an application filed by the petitioner seeking her impleadment as respondent No.7 in the original application is dismissed.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner has filed the suit seeking the relief of partition before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore against respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No.1 filed an original application in O.A.No.383/2013 for recovery of an amount of Rs.127,87,96,771/- along with rate of interest at 19.50% p.a. compounded monthly from respondent Nos.2 to 7. As soon as the petitioner came to know about filing of the aforesaid original application, the petitioner filed an application seeking her impleadment in the aforesaid proceeding. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) by order dated 13.02.2017 has dismissed the aforesaid application inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate as to how she got share in the properties.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of no obstructing clause contained under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act), all the questions arise between the parties with regard to the properties in respect of which encumbrance is created in favour of the Bank as a debt.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the impugned order has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in ‘Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal & others’ [(2014) 1 SCC 479].
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have opposed the prayer for impleadment and submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is just and legal.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
9. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Singh (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held that, in view of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, there is ouster of jurisdiction for the Civil Court and the Debt Recovery Tribunal is entitled to determine all the questions in respect of the properties in question. The impugned order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the case. In any case, the petitioner is impleaded under the proceeding pending before the Tribunal, the same would not lead to multiplicity of litigation which is one of the object of impleadment. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 is quashed and it is set aside. The application preferred by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. In the result, the petition is disposed of. In view of disposal of the writ petition, IA No.1/2017 filed for vacating stay also stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR