IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.26976 OF 2017 (GM–DRT) AND WRIT PETITION NOs.33458-33459 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. M/s. R. L. Chemicals (P) Ltd., 102 Greenfield Apartments, No.3, Prime Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru – 560 025.
Represented by its Director, Sri. B. A. Lakshman, Aged about 51 years, Son of late Sri. Anjanappa.
2. Sri. B. A. Ram, Aged about 51 years, Son of late Sri. Anjanappa, Residing at 102, Greenfield Apartments, No.3, Prime Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru – 560 025.
3. Sri. B. A. Lakshman, Aged about 51 years, Son of late Sri. Anjanappa, Residing at 102, Greenfield Apartments, No.3, Prime Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru – 560 025.
… Petitioners (By Sri. Adhitya Sondhi, Senior Counsel for Sri. Kiran S. Javali, Advocate) AND:
1. M/s. Vijaya Bank, A.R.M. Branch, Shrutha Complex, No.19, Primerose Road, Bengaluru – 560 025.
Represented by its Branch Manager.
2. Recover Officer – 2, Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, LIC Jeevan Mangal Building, No.4, Residency Road, Bengaluru – 560 025.
3. C.G.Rajesh Karambaiah, Flat No.102, 2nd Floor, Gayathri Omnest Apartments, Ambedkar Layout, Kavalbyrasandra, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032.
Major, S/o C. G. Ganapathy.
… Respondents (By Sri. A. Ravishankar, Advocate for R3; Sri. K. V. Lokesh, Advocate for R1; Smt. H. R. Anitha, CGC for R2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the sale proclamation dated 11.11.2016 issued by the Recovery Officer – 2, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru R-2 herein in RC No.246 in O.A.No.525/1995 and all further actions pursuant to the same in the case of the petitioners Annexure – D and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Adhitya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Kiran S. Javali, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri. K. V. Lokesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Smt. H. R. Anitha, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.2.
Sri. A. Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
These petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. In these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek for quashment of the Sale Proclamation dated 11.11.2016 as well as the Sale Certificate dated 16.01.2017 issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru.
3. When these matters were taken up today, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Sale Proclamation in respect of the property in question was issued on 22.06.2009 and the reserve price was fixed at 3.05 Crores in respect of land measuring 8 acres and 15 guntas. Further, the valuation was unilaterally reduced to `2.15 Crores without any notice to the petitioners and respondent No.3 has purchased the property belonging to the petitioners for a consideration of `2.17 Crores. It is further submitted that since the impugned auction has been taken in violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioners can approach this Court with regard to their grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.3 submitted that the property in question was mortgaged by the petitioners on 07.06.1990 in favour of the Bank and thereafter, the same was sold on 27.11.2014 to one C. S. Krishnamurthy and in this connection, attention of this Court is invited to the sale deed dated 27.11.2004 at Annexure- R11. It is further submitted that the auction in respect of the property was taken place in the year 2016 and therefore, the petitioners has no locus to question the same.
5. In response, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners fairly admitted that the sale had taken place through power of attorney for consideration of `4.80 lakhs and the sale certificate has been issued. In this proceedings, this Court is not required to examine the validity of the sale deed executed by the petitioners. In view of the fact that the alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), I am not inclined to entertain these writ petitions. However, the same are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners that in case the petitioners, if so advised, may approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Act.
6. Needless to state that in case such an appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall invoke the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and shall decide the appeal which may be preferred by the petitioners on merits.
With the aforesaid liberty, writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-