IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28874 OF 2019 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
SMT.NISHA K.V.
W/O A.K.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.711/420, 7TH WARD, 2ND CROSS M.G.ROAD, CHARTRADA BEEDI RAMANAGARAM – 562 159 (By Mr.SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADV.) AND:
STATE BANK OF INDIA AUTHORISED OFFICER VIDHANAGAR BRANCH OPP. PANCHAYATH BHAVAN B.M. ROAD RAMANAGARA – 562 159 (By Mr.T.P.MUTHANNA, ADV.) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.06.2019 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU UNDER ANN-F, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Somashekharaiah R.P., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on an interlocutory application by which operation and execution of the possession notice issued by the Bank has been stayed subject to payment of a sum of `6,00,000/- up to 10.07.2019 and a further sum of `6,00,000/- up to 25.07.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that infact the petitioner owes a sum of `68,344/- as on 22.07.2019 and the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the aforesaid amount before time and the respondent shall be restrained in holding the auction in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while inviting the attention of this Court to the statement of accounts which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the total amount due and payable by the petitioner is `43,01,316/- and the petitioner’s account has already been declared as non-performing asset on 29.09.2018. It is also further submitted that a notice 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) was served on the petitioner on 01.10.2018. However, no response was received from the petitioner. Thereafter, an order under Section 13(4) of the Act was passed which is the subject matter of challenge before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is further submitted that the matter is pending adjudication before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner maintained stoic silence when the proceedings were initiated against her by the respondent – Bank on 01.10.2018, till today. The petitioner has not even approached the respondent – Bank with regard to her grievance. The petitioner, after the respondent had taken measures under Section 13(4) of the Act, has also chosen the forum and has filed a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal which even otherwise is appealable under Section 18 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
7. In the fact situation of the case, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as provided to her under Section 18 of the Act.
Sd/- JUDGE RV