IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION No.13507 OF 2018 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
M/S RVNS EXIM (P) LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR B.PRASHANTH KUMAR REGD OFFICE NO.NA-79 BEL COLONY, JALAHALLI POST BANGALORE-560013 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.A. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. INDIAN BANK M.G. ROAD BRANCH NO.110, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER 2. SRI. M.S. SANJAY S/O M. SUBBARAJU RESIDING AT NO.61, AG’S LAYOUT NEW BEL ROAD BANGALORE-560013 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. U.S. YOGESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SERVICE ON R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 30.8.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF PARA NO.10 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.02.2018 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI IN R.A.(S.A) 99 OF 2014 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS BEING DIRECTED TO PAY 9% INTEREST P.A. COMPOUNDED QUARTERLY INCLUDING COSTS AND REGISTRATION EXPENSES TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WHICH IS PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing-‘B’ Group, by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioner being aggrieved by the sale notice dated 2.03.2010 and sale proceedings dated 15.04.2010 initiated by 1st respondent- Bank for sale of immovable property had called the same by filing S.A. No.520/2009 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Karnataka (‘DRT’ for short).
3. Application/appeal filed by petitioner found favour by DRT and said S.A.No.520/2009 was allowed with costs by setting aside the sale and declaring said sale as illegal. However, on account of auction having taken place, bid amount deposited by the auction purchaser, which was ordered to be refunded to him by 1st respondent –Bank was with an additional condition viz., petitioner was directed to pay interest for said amount to be refunded by Bank at 9% p.a., compounded quarterly from date of deposit of bid amount till entire amount is repaid to him including costs and registration expenses.
4. The Bank being aggrieved by order of DRT filed an appeal in R.A (SA) No.99/2014 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (‘Appellate Tribunal’ for short). Appellate Tribunal by order dated 12.02.2018 Annexure-A dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by DRT. This order has attained finality.
5. Petitioner who was the applicant before DRT had filed an appeal being aggrieved by the direction issued to it to refund/pay interest at rate of 9% p.a. on bid amount deposited by auction purchaser urging several grounds before the Appellate Tribunal. On account of certain defects having been pointed out by the registry, appeal was not numbered and it was at initial stage and had been numbered as AIR 474/2014. Said office objection having not been complied, appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner has filed W.P.No.56346/2016 which is pending before this Court.
6. In this writ petition, it is the contention of Sri.M.A.Rajendra, learned advocate appearing for petitioner that DRT having set-aside sale notice, sale certificate and sale proceedings having been declared as illegal, it ought not to have burdened the petitioner to pay interest on amount deposited by auction purchaser with the Bank and as such, order of DRT dated 11.03.2014 as affirmed by Appellate Tribunal in RA(SA) 99/2014 Annexure-A, requires to be set-aside/modified.
7. Sri.Yogesh, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that writ petition itself is not maintainable. Rightly so, for the simple reason petitioner being aggrieved by the order of DRT dated 11.03.2014 insofar as directing petitioner to pay interest at rate of 9% p.a. to auction purchaser having been challenged in an appeal before Appellate Tribunal and said appeal having been dismissed is under adjudication before this Court, present writ petition would not be maintainable. As such, reserving liberty to petitioner to urge all grounds in pending W.P.No.56346/2017 including grounds urged in present writ petition, this petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ln