IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28368 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/s. Macdanal Granites (P) Ltd., A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its Regd. Office at A-343, 9th Main, Peenya II Stage, Bengaluru – 560 058.
Represented by its Director, Sri. O. Raju.
… Petitioner (By Sri. R. Swaroop Anand, Advocate for Sri. S. V. Srinivas, Advocate) AND:
1. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Having its Branch at Peenya, PIA Bhavan, Peenya Industrial Estate, Peenya, Bengaluru – 560 058. Represented by its Senior Manager.
2. Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Supervision, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.
Represented by its General Manager.
… Respondents (By Sri. P. Srinivasaiah, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the letter dated 14.06.2012, vide Annexure – M as also notice dated 06.06.2013, vide Annexure – N, issued by the R1, by the R2, as without jurisdiction and etc., This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. R. Swaroop Anand, learned counsel for Sri. S.V. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. P. Srinivasaiah, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, petitioner inter alia seeks writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 14.06.2012 contained in Annexure-M as well as notice dated 06.06.2013 contained in Annexure-N.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has availed the loan facility from respondent No.1-Bank. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between them on 30.10.2006. Respondent No.1-Bank issued notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and thereafter, possession notice under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) was issued to the petitioner on 29.04.2010. The reply dated 04.05.2010 was furnished by the petitioner to the aforesaid notices. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) by filing an application. The aforesaid application was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2011. The petitioner approached the Reserve Bank of India by submitting a complaint dated 17.05.2012 against respondent No.1-Bank. By a communication dated 14.06.2012, the Reserve Bank of India informed the petitioner that the rate of interest was charged as per the bank’s extant instructions. Thereafter, respondent No.1-Bank sent notice dated 06.06.2013 to the petitioner by which the petitioner was asked to repay the loan amount.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the communication issued by the Reserve Bank of India is against the direction contained in the order dated 20.10.2011 issued by the Tribunal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the communication issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The relevant extract of the Tribunal order reads as under:
“V. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the Respondent Bank has not proved their claim that the account has become NPA on the relevant date by producing material proof. It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent Bank has not given any proper explanation on the accounts statement produced by the Applicant issued by the Respondent Bank, which clearly shows that at no point of time that the principal and interest has not been serviced continuously for a period of 90 days to treat the account as NPA. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Applicant has proved his case that the account has not become NPA on the relevant date, entitling the Respondent Bank to initiate measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Consequently, SA No.515/2010 is allowed. The measures initiated by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act are hereby quashed. Pending IAs in the matter, if any, are treated as closed. Any interim order granted in the matter stands vacated. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. Under Rule 16 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1994, free copy may be issued to both the parties.”
7. From perusal of the communication of the Reserve Bank of India dated 14.06.2012, it is evident that while passing the aforesaid order, the Reserve Bank of India has not taken into account the import of the order dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal. The impugned communication dated 14.06.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside and the Reserve Bank of India is directed to decide the complaint filed by the petitioner afresh in the light of the order dated 20.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
8. Needless to state that in case the petitioner has any grievance to the notices issued to him, he may be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under law.
With the aforesaid liberty, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-