IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.17459/2015 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
B.E. MOHAMMAD YUNUS S/o MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF MANDIGADI VILLAGE KOPPA TALUK 577 126 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: S.V.PRAKASH, ADV.) AND:
CANARA BANK SRINGERI BRANCH BHARATHI STREET SRINGERI-577 139 CHIKKAMAGALLURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER (BY SRI M.R.SHASHIDHAR, ADV.) ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:25.02.2015 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN I.A.NO.5593/2014 IN O.A.NO.1300/2013 VIDE ANNEX-G TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner who is the borrower from the respondent- Bank has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.02.2015 made on IA No.5593/2014 in O.A.No.1300/2013 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-defendant seeking cross- examination of AW-1.
2. Sri M.R. Shashidhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the dictum of judgments of this Court in the case of M/s. IDEB Projects Pvt. Ltd., and Others vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in ILR 2014 KAR 3937 (DB) and contended that the very writ petition filed is not maintainable and question to consider the application for permission would not arise and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
3. Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if an opportunity is provided to the petitioner to cross-examine AW.1 no prejudice would be caused to the respondent before the Tribunal and he sought to allow the writ petition.
4. The learned District and Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer taking into consideration the application has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-defendant has not disputed the debts that he has borrowed as loan, execution of loan documents and defaults. Petitioner- Defendant has put forth a defense stating that on account of certain disease to arrecanut trees there is loss, hence he is entitled for benefits under the Central Government scheme. Hence for these reasons cross-examination is not necessary. If the defendant is able to produce or place any documentary proof before the Tribunal to show that a scheme is established by the Central Government for the growers like on hand and defendant is entitled for it, certainly defendant can invoke the benefit from the said scheme. Production of circular or any document in respect of said scheme is sufficient to determine OA. Hence, cross examination is not necessary. It is further held that it is not in dispute that OA’s like on hand is to be dealt and determined under summary procedures. Rules 12(5) 12(7) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, mandate that the Tribunal has to give a sufficient reason to give permission for cross-examination of the witness. It is well established principles of Law that a clear case has to be made out by defendant No.1, but it is not done so and accordingly rejected the application.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. IDEB Projects Pvt. Ltd., and Others vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., ILR 2014 KAR 3937 at para 11 has held as under:
“11. In view of the facts and the legal position recorded hereinabove, it is obvious that the present petitions are neither maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution nor can they be entertained on merits, in view of the lapses on the part of the DRT in exercising its powers under Rule 12(6) of DRT Rules.”
6. In view of the reasons assigned by the learned Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
7. However, it is always open to the petitioner to produce or place the document or circular before the Debt Recovery Tribunal issued by the Central Government, exempting that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under the scheme. If such document is produced by the petitioner, then Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE HR