IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7484/2015 (GM - DRT) BETWEEN:
SMT.MARY PHILOMENA @ AMALAMMA, AGE 64 YEARS, W/O SRI.SUSAIRAJ, REPRESENTED BY HER PA HOLDER, MR.S.LAWRENCE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI.SUSAIRAJ, R/AT NO.49, (NORTHERN PORTION), JAKKUR LAYOUT, 2ND B CROSS, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 064.
…PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SHRI M.V.V.RAMANA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, VIJAYANAGAR BRANCH, NO.56, PUSHPAGIRI COMPLEX, 17TH CROSS, MAGADI CHORD ROAD, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 040.
2. MR.R.RAJENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI.RAMACHANDRA MENON, R/AT NO.500, 15TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 040.
3. N.SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O GANGAIAH, R/O M/S.DHANALAKSHMI ENTERPRISES, NO.24, 19TH CROSS, LAKSHMI PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 058.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI PRAKASHA HEGDE K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SHRI C.PATTABIRAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R2 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 10.06.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2013 IN O.A.NO.950/2011 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner, Shri Prakasha Hegde K., learned advocate for respondent No.1-Union of India and Shri C.Pattabiraman, learned advocate for respondent No.3.
2. Petitioner’s case is, she has purchased Site bearing No.49 measuring 600 sq.ft., situated at Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 03.01.2007. Respondent No.1-Bank has sanctioned loan to respondent No.2 in the year 2009. Since, there was default in payment of said loan amount, respondent No.1-Bank initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short the “Tribunal”). By judgment and order dated 30.08.2013, OA.No.950/2011 filed by Bank has been decreed.
3. Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner submitted that in furtherance to the decree passed by the Tribunal, Bank has brought petitioner’s property for auction. Learned Senior advocate further submitted that the petitioner is neither the borrower nor executed any mortgage deed nor deposited the original documents with the Bank. In the circumstances, Bank could not have brought petitioner’s property for auction.
4. Shri Prakasha Hegde K., learned advocate for respondent No.1-Bank argued in support of the impugned decree passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the said judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is appealable before the Tribunal.
5. The grounds urged in support of this petition revolves around the facts with regard to identity of the property. Further the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is appealable before DRAT.
6. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. Resultantly, petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE PB