IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.55727 OF 2014 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
1. SRI B. BHASKAR RAO, S/O SRI B. RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI B. SAGAR, S/O SRI B. BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.19/5, MALAONAGATHI HALLI, T.BEGUR, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN: 562 123.
(BY MR. SOMASHEKARA.K.M, ADV. FOR MR.K.L.PRABAKAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 002, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
2. THE CANARA BANK, THYAMAGONDLU BRANCH, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, PIN: 562 132.
3. SRI V. BALAKRISHNA GOWDA, …PETITIONERS S/O LATE SRI A.G. VENKATESH, MAJOR, R/AT NO.14, ADAKAMARANAHALLI, MAKALI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT PIN:562 123.
(BY MR.C.VINAYSWAMY, ADV. FOR R1 AND 2 MR.B.S.MAHENDRA, ADV. FOR R3) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANN-F DATED 27.10.2014 ON I.A. NO. 901/2014 IN A PROCEEDINGS VIDE IR NO. 579/2014 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.K.L.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.C.Vinayswamy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Sri.B.S.Mahendra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia have assailed the validity of the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by which the application filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the sale notice has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the order has not been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on merits, therefore, the matter may be remitted to the Tribunal to decide the same on merits. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay. In support of his submissions even though the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to some decision of Punjab and Harayana High Court, however, the same has not been produced for perusal of this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank submitted that the petitioners have the remedy of filing of an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
6. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. Section 18(1) of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by any order made by the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority. Thus, it is evident that against any order if an appeal lies before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the order need not be an order on merits only. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of ‘AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER vs. MATHEW K.C’, (2018) 3 SCC 85, ‘KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS’ (2011) 2 SCC 782 ‘UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON AND ORS.’, (2010) 8 SCC 110, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
7. However, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners that in case the petitioners file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the Appellate Tribunal shall invoke the principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and shall decide the appeal which may be preferred by the petitioners on merits in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV