IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION Nos.8695/2018 & 8760/2018(GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
1. M/S. BHAVANI POULTRY FARM PARTNERSHIP FIRM NO.105, GOLDSMITH COLONY 2ND CROSS, COWL BAZAR BANDIHATTI ROAD, BELLARY-583101. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SMT. DURGA BHAVANI 2. SMT. Y. DURGA BHAVANI, W/O SRI RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.105, GOLDSMITH COLONY, 2ND CROSS, COWL BAZAR BANDIHATTI ROAD, BELLARY-583101 (BY SMT ARCHANA MURTHY P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DRT # 4, JEEVAN MANGAL BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025.
2. SYNDICATE BANK, BELLARY MAIN BRANCH AGADY BUILDING, BANGALORE ROAD, BELLARY-583101 REPRESENTED BY ITS P.A HOLDER AND CHIEF MANAGER SRI A NARAYANA SHETTIGAR S/O LATE NANDI SHETTIGAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ... PETITIONERS 3. SRI Y. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY S/O SRI Y. KOTESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.105, GOLDSMITH COLONY 2ND CROSS, COWL BAZAR, BANDIHATTI ROAD, BELLARY-583101 4. SRI KRISHNA MOHAN S/O SRI Y. KOTESHWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.102, VAISHNAVI HOMES, MADINAGADA, HYDERABAD-560003.
5. SRI RAJESH HIREMATH S/O SRI SHANKARAYYA HIREMATH BEHIND P V RAO COMPLEX, RAM KISHORE COLONY SINDHANUR, RAICHUR-584101 6. SMT. GEETHA HIREMATH W/O SRI RAJESH HIREMATH BEHIND PV RAO COMPLEX, RAM KISHOR COLONY, SINDHANUR, RAICHUR-584101.
7. M/S RANGANATH ELECTRICALS REPRESENTED BY SRI B. H. KULKARNI "JANAKI NILAYA", SINDHANUR, RAICHUR-584101 .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAN S., ADVOCATE FOR R5-R7;
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.02.2018 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 & R4 IS DISPENSED WITH; R2 SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 01.02.2019 R1 DEEMED TO HAVE SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE D.R.T. IN O.A. NO. 321/2012 DATED 31.10.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO ISSUE OF A SALE PROCLAMATION BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER II, D.R.T.-1 AT BANGALORE I.E., R.C. NUMBER 8290 IN O.A.1321/2012 VIDE ANNEX-E AND BY THE ISSUE OF SALE CERTIFIED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER II, D.R.T. ON 9/11/2017 TO R-5 TO 7 VIDE ANNEX-G TO G3 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Smt.Archana Murthy P, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Mohan S, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7.
2. In these petitions the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs :-
i) To set aside the order of the D.R.T in O.A.No.1321/2012 dated 31.20.2013 vide Annexure-B and also issue of a sale proclamation by the recovery officer II, D.R.T.-1 at Bangalore i.e. RC number 8290 in O.A.No.1321/2012 vide Annexure-E and by the issue of sale certificate by the recovery officer II, D.R.T. on 9.11.2017 to the respondents 5 to 7 vide Annexure G- G3;
ii) Issue a writ of certiorari by setting aside the sale deed dated 23.1.2018 executed by the D.R.T. in favour of the respondent No.7 vide Annexure-H.
iii) Issue any other writ or order or direction which this Hon’ble court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Admittedly, against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), appeal lies under Section 20 of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS (2010) 8 SCC 110, while dealing with the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has held that in case of alternative remedy in the context of the Act, has held that dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues may contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. Similar view has been taken in KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (2011) 2 SCC 782. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and taking into account the facts that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available to her under Section 20 of the Act, the petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.
5. It is needless to state that in case the petitioner files an appeal under Section 20 of the Act within a period of six weeks from today, she will be entitled to the benefits of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE rs