IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.10943 OF 2019 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ S. PATIL S/O. SANGANAGOUDA S. PATIL AGED 54 YEARS R/AT NO.10-2/34 S.B. COLLEGE ROAD SANGAMESHWARA COLONY KALABURGI-585 103. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI B.O. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADV.) AND:
TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.57 V.E. ROAD, THOOTHUKUDI-628 002 TAMILNADU STATE AND HAVING BRANCH AT NO.3-218 ‘RUKMINI CHAMBERS’ NEAR CHETHAN HIGH SCHOOL ADJACENT TO SUPER MARKET KALABURGI-585 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.K.M. SHETTY, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12.12.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1885/2018 IN O.A. NO.273/2018 BY THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BENGALURU TO CONSIDER THE I.A.NO.1885/2018 IN O.A.NO.273/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 25 OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS OF PRACTICE.
THIS WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri B.O. Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for petitioner. Sri S.K.M. Shetty, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is admitted for hearing.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’ for short), by which the DRT has refused to take the written statement filed by the petitioner on record.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed the written statement on 26.10.2018 and the same may be taken on record. It is further submitted that the petitioner also undertakes to file the examination-in- chief of his witnesses in the form of an affidavit within a period of one month from today.
5. The aforesaid prayer is fairly not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has the right to have fair trial, the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the DRT is hereby quashed. The DRT is directed to take the written statement filed by the petitioner on record. Needless to state that the petitioner shall file the examination-in-chief of his witnesses on an affidavit within a period of one month from today. Thereafter, the DRT shall proceed to deal with the matter expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST