IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT APPEAL NO.3911 OF 2019 (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. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT PRAMILA NESARGI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAMA RAMACHANDRA IYER, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, VIJAYANAGAR BRANCH, NO.56, PUSHPAGIRI COMPLEX, 17TH CROSS, MAGADI CHORD ROAD, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE – 560040.
2. MR. R. RAJENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAMACHANDRA MENON, R/AT NO.500, 15TH CROS, 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 SMT SWETHA RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2019 IN W.P 7484/2015 AND HEREBY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2013 IN O.A.NO.9508/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘A’ IN WP NO.7484/2015 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The appellant by filing a writ petition had challenged the final judgment and order dated 30th August, 2013 in Original Application No.950/2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition on the ground that the judgment and order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal can be appealed by any person aggrieved in accordance with Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short ‘the said Act of 1993’).
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the property purchased by the petitioner has been mortgaged by someone else which is put to sale in January, 2020. Her submission is that the appellant cannot be driven to file an appeal. Moreover, the appellant has to deposit the requisite amount as per Section 21 of the said Act of 1993. She submitted that though an objection is raised to the auction, the same has not been considered.
4. We have considered the submissions. Apart from the fact that in view of sub - section (1) of Section 20 of the said Act of 1993, any person who is aggrieved by an order made by the Debt Recovery Tribunal can prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the said Act of 1993 is a complete Code by itself. As noted in Section 29 of the said Act of 1993, the provisions of the second and third schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Income Tax (Certificate Proceeding) Rules, 1962 are applicable with necessary modification as if the said provisions and the said Rules refer to the amount of debt due under the said Act of 1993. Thus, under the said Act of 1993, the appellant has more than adequate remedies available.
5. We, therefore, concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that writ jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be invoked by the petitioner.
6. By keeping open the remedies available to the appellant, the appeal is dismissed.
7. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE ykl