IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.36180 OF 2017 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
MR. RAJ KONDUR, S/O LATE MR. K. LAKSHMANA RAJU, RESIDING AT 487, 3RD CROSS, 9TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 008.
(BY MS.VINUTA RAYADURG, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHREYAS JAYASIMHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS A TRUSTEE OF IARF TRUST SCHEME 1 (IARC), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFICE AT: 709, 7TH FLOOR, ANSAL BHAVAN, 16, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001.
AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT: A-508, 5TH FLOOR, 215, KANAKIA SPACES, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 400093.
2. NIRVANA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, …PETITIONER A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 777/O, 1ST CROSS, 13TH MAIN ROAD, 100 FEET ROAD, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
3. M/S NBS INTERNATIONAL MAURITITUS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT IFS COURT, TWENTY EIGHT, CYBERCITY, EBENE, MAURITIUS.
4. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-5, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL, COMMISSIONER OF IT, BENGALURU – 5.
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 095.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUDAS S. KANNUR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DHIRENDRA N. KATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.7.2017 IN DCP 7519/2014 IN O.A.130/2012 AT ANNEXURE - A PASSED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Ms. Vinuta Rayadurg, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. Gurudas S. Kannur, learned Sr. Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. K. V. Aravind, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing with the consent of the parties. Same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore (‘DRT’ for short).
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that against the impugned order dated 28.07.2017, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the DRT in the month of July 2017. However, the aforesaid appeal is still pending.
5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the aforesaid appeal has been dismissed on account of non-compliance with the conditions contained in the order dated 21.08.2017.
6. The aforesaid statement of fact is controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding before the DRT is still pending.
7. Be that as it may, it is well settled in law that litigant cannot be allowed to prosecute two remedies simultaneously. (See AIR 2000 SC 1172 “Bank of India vs. Lakhimoni Das & Ors.”, AIR 2000 SC 3552 “Kumud Kumar vs. Central Bank of India & Anr.”) 8. In view of the aforesaid well settled legal position, since the petitioner has already availed of the remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT against the order dated 28.07.2017, the petitioner cannot be permitted to prosecute this writ petition.
9. Accordingly the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, which is already undertaken by him before filing this petition.
Sd/- JUDGE RD