IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.56661 OF 2018 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
1. Sri A. Krishna Murthy, S/o late Basappa, Aged about 52 years.
2. Smt. Padmavathi, W/o Sri A. Krishna Murthy, Aged about 48 years.
Both are residing at Pattanaseragu Village, Bellary Taluk, and Bellary District – 583 113.
(By Sri. Kaleemullah Shariff, Advocate) AND:
1. Syndicate Bank, Emmiganur Branch, Sri Bande Ranganatha Nilaya Main Road, Emmiganur, Bellary – 583 113, Represented by its Senior Branch Manager, Sri Ramesh Naik Dhanvanth, Aged about 55 years.
… Petitioners 2. Sri. Sudarshan Gowda, S/o Sri. Somashekara Gowda, Aged about 50 years, R/at Pattanaseragu Village, Bellary Taluk and Bellary District – 583 113.
… Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order on O.A.No.1937/2016 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore dated 18.11.2017 produced at Annexure-F and also the notices bearing No.R.C.No.13000, dated 30.07.2018 produced as Annexure-G by issuing.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Kaleemullah Shariff, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Taking into account the order, which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the DRT’ for short), by which original application preferred by respondent No.1-Bank has been allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to the closure/clearance certificate dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-B), submitted that the entire amount has been repaid by the petitioners. However, since the certificate could not be placed before the DRT, the petitioners were placed exparte.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further prays that petitioners may be permitted to submit an appropriate application before the DRT for presenting the said fact on record.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners that in case they file an appropriate application within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the DRT shall decide the aforesaid application in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of one month from the date of filing such an application. It is open for the petitioner to make an application seeking any relief which shall be dealt in accordance with law by the DRT.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-