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.49390/2016 & 6244-6245/2017 (GM DRT) BETWEEN:
CANARA BANK A BODY CORPORATE, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT 1970, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002, AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH OFFICES CALLED SEDAM BRANCH AT SEDAM, GULBARGA DISTRICT, REPD: BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, SRI. T. BALAKRISHNA BHAT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI HARIDAS BHAT V, ADV.) AND 1. SMT. SHARANAMMA W/O. SRI. SHIVASHARANAPPA KALBURGI, AGE: MAJOR, PROPRIETRIX OF M/S. PRABHUDEVA RURAL GODOWN, NO.586, NEAR SRINIVASA SARADAGI CROSS, SEDAM ROAD, GULBARGA-585 102.
2. SRI ANIL KUMAR PATIL, AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. SRI VEERA SHETTY, RESIDING AT YELLALINGA NILAYA, VIDYANAGAR, SEDUM, PIN - 585 222. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVARAJ N.ARALI, ADV. FOR R1, SRI NAGENDRA NAIK, ADV. FOR R2.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN O.A NO.763/2011 PASSED BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:2.8.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3292/16, 3293/16 & 3295/16 O.A NO.763/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND THEREBY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATIONS ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Haridas Bhat.V, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Shivaraj N.Arali, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr.R.Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matters are heard finally.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners, inter alia, have assailed the validity of the Order dated 2.08.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore.
3. When the matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that against the aforesaid order, an appeal lies under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON AND ORS.’, (2010) 8 SCC 110 while interpreting the provisions of the Act has held that, once the proceedings under SARFAESI Act is initiated by the Bank, efficacious remedy in the form of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is provided to the petitioners and they should avail the same. The aforesaid decision was quoted with approval in the case of ‘AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER vs. MATHEW K.C’, (2018) 3 SCC 85.
Similar view has been taken in ‘KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS’, (2011) 2 SCC 782 and it has been held that an appeal under Section 17 of the Act lies and the High Court was not justified in entertaining the Writ Petition. The aforesaid view is reiterated in ‘AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER (supra).
5. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.
6. It is needless to state that in case the appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits by according the petitioner the benefit of principles contained in Section 14-D of the Limitation Act, 1993.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Ad-interim order, if any, granted by this Court shall continue for a period of four weeks.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.