IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.2531 OF 2019 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK (MUMBAI) LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT MOHAN TERRACE, 64/72, MODI STREET, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S. GML INFRACON NH-66, OPPOSITE CANARA BANK, MANGALURU-574 146.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MOHAAN R. KOTIAN.
2. MR. MOHAN RAMA KOTIAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SON OF RAMA KOTIAAN, NO.B-504, VALENCIA, HEERA NANDI GARDEN, CENTRAL AVENUE ROAD, POWAI, MUMBAI-400 076.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.V.V. RAMANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.23228 OF 2019 (GM-DRT), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23228 of 2019, wherein the impugned order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru was set- aside only to the extent of payment of Rs.50,00,000/- by the respondent herein, the respondent before the learned Single Judge has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that notwithstanding the merits of this case, the Debt Recovery Tribunal may be directed to consider the matter in the light of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in terms of para – 8 of his order.
3. The said contention is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. However, on hearing learned counsels we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. With regard to the merits of the matter, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal to pass appropriate orders in the instant case.
5. The learned Single Judge had set-aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.03.2019, only to the extent of payment of Rs.50,00,000/- before the respondent herein. Liberty was reserved to the respondent – bank to file objections and thereafter for the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders. It is stated that the objections have been filed by the petitioner.
6. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that it is only appropriate to direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider the objections filed and pass necessary orders. Hence, for this limited purpose the appeal is allowed. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru is directed to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. To this extent, the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 18.12.2019 without any further orders.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JJ/-