IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 39583 OF 2014(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/s Karnataka Technical Education Society (KTES), No.501, Sy.No.224/226, Saluhunse, Near Kaggalipura, Udayapura Post, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore-560 082.
Rep. by its Present Chairman, Sri.Dr.S.Mahalingam, Aged about 60 years. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Shanmukhappa, Advocate) AND:
1. M/s Syndicate Bank, Regional Office South, Anandhabhavan, 1st Floor, Nettakallappa Circle, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560 004. Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Mr. Kubendran.
2. Mr. H.K.S.Shastri, Aged about 77 years, S/o Late H.Krishna Shastry, Residing at Ambika, No.281, 26th Cross, 9th Main, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 070.
3. Mrs. Savitha H., Aged about 40 years, W/o Mr. Venkatesh S.Shastri, Residing at No.1065, 11th Cross, 35th Main, 1st Phase, JP Nagar, Bangalore-560 078.
4. Mr. Venkatesh S. Shastri, Aged about 44 years, S/o Mr. K.N. Shamanna, Residing at No.1065, 11th Cross, 35th Main, 1st Phase, JP Nagar, Bangalore-560 078. ...Respondents (By Sri Sandeep Katti, Advocate for R1: Sri S.V.Bhat, Advocate for R2:
Notice to R3 & R4 dispensed with v/o dated:10.09.2014.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.1 Bank to proceed against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and their personal properties mentioned in the schedule below in order to satisfy the pending dues of the loans availed by them from the bank for their personal use & etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Issue rule.
Heard Sri Shanmukhappa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Katti, learned advocate appearing for the Bank.
2. The Karnataka Technical Education Society (‘KTES’ for short) borrowed loan from Syndicate Bank. As on 3rd June 2014 the Society repaid a sum of Rs.91,45,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand Only) as per the Certificate issued by the Bank (Annexure-E). Thereafter, there was default in repayment. The bank, brought societies mortgaged property for auction in the year 2018 when the total dues according to the learned advocate for the respondent was about Rs.1.64 Crores and recovered the loan that was advanced to the Society.
3. Sri Shanmukhappa, learned advocate for the society submitted that there was dispute in the management of the Society. The present Chairman Sri S.Mahalingam has repaid a sum of Rs.91,45,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand Only) as certified in Annexure-E. The respondent – Bank have filed statement of objections stating that the bank does not recognize Mr.Mahalingam as the Chairman of the bank. The amount borrowed by the bank has been used by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein who were the members of the Society. Therefore, they are responsible for repaying the amount. Accordingly, he prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the bank to refund the sum of Rs.91,45,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand Only) paid by Sri Mahalingam and to recover the same from respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
4. I have carefully considered the contentions and perused the records.
5. It is not in dispute that the financial assistance was taken by the Society from the Syndicate Bank by mortgaging its properties. The certificate dated 3rd June 2014 (Annexure-E) states that a sum of Rs.91,45,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand Only) was received from Bangalore Group of Educational Institutions and the same has been adjusted towards the NPA dues of Karnataka Technical Education Society, the petitioner herein. It is also not in dispute that the Bank brought the mortgaged assets to auction and recovered the entire amount.
6. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the Bank to refund Rs.91,45,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand Only) on the ground that the said amount has been paid by Sri S.Mahalingam in his personal capacity. This is purely a question of fact and cannot be agitated in a writ petition.
7. Admittedly the petitioner herein is the society.
Claim of Shri.Mahalingam is based on inter-se differences/disputes among the members of the Society, which he may agitate in appropriate proceedings if so advised.
8. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-