IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.42451 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S MINDLOGICX INFRATEC LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TECHLLANO, 10/1-B, GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD, K.R.PURAM, HOBLI, HOODI VILLAGE, BANGALORE, AND REPRESENTED BY SHRI SURESH ELANGOVAN CEO AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
(BY SRI. SANJAY H. SETHIYA, ADV.) AND:
CORPORATION BANK, … PETITIONER A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1980 HAVING ITS CORPORATE BRANCH AT MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE-575001, KARNATAKA, INDIA AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT SOUTH END ROAD, MILL CORNER, SHESHADRIPURAM (P.O) MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.B. RAVISHANKAR, ADV) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT BANK PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED LETTER DTD.18.8.2014 AT ANNEX-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. Sanjay H.Sethiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. V B Ravishankar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 18.08.2014 passed by respondent by which the prayer for restructuring of the loan of the petitioner which was granted earlier has been rejected.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 18.08.2014 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner be granted the liberty to submit fresh representation with regard to his grievance and the competent authority of the respondent-Bank be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in case the petitioner submits a fresh representation, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Taking into account the fact that the impugned order dated 18.08.2014 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is hereby quashed and liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with regard to his grievance to the competent authority of the Bank. Needless to state, that if the petitioner submits the representation within three weeks from today, the respondent Bank shall decide the same by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case .
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS