Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri D H Ramesh vs Reserve Bank Of India And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|19 November, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50500 OF 2019 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
Sri.D.H.Ramesh Aged about 46 years Proprietor: M/s.S.R.S.Enterprises, Dabbe Village & Post, Arehalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District – 573 115.
(By Smt: D.Kavitha, Advocate) AND:
1. Reserve Bank of India, Dept. of Banking Supervision, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 001, Rep. by The Assistant General Manager.
2. The Chairman M/s.State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai – 400 021.
3. Regional Manager, M/s.State Bank of India, Regional Business Office-05, 1st Floor, Sri Hosmane Extension Branch, Chickmagaluru – 577 101.
... PETITIONER 4. The Branch Manager, M/s. State Bank of India, Belur Branch, Aswini Mansion Main Road, Belur – 573 115, Hassan District.
5. The Dy. Commissioner & District Magistrate Hassan District, 1st Floor, Zilla Panchayat Bengaluru – Mangaluru Highway, Hassan - 573 201. .. RESPONDENTS (By Sri.T.Surya Narayana, Advocate for R1; Sri.Tulasi Kumar, Advocate for R2 to R4; Sri.Sridhar N.Hegde, HCGP for R5) ---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and set aside the order dated 16.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.2015/2019 by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Bengaluru in S.A. No.281/2019 filed by the petitioner under Annexure-‘M’ and issue necessary directions to respondent pending consideration of representations dated 27.05.2019 submitted by the petitioner under Annexure-‘A’ not to proceed with any kind of recovery action against the schedule property.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R Sri. T.Suryanarayana, learned Advocate takes notice for respondent No.1.
Sri. Tulasi Kumar, learned counsel undertakes to file power for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Sri. Sridhar. N. Hegde, learned HCGP to take notice for respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal on I.A.No.2015/2019 in SAC No.281/2019, vacating the interim order already granted for non-payment of the remaining amount on the ground that the petitioner has not complied the order passed by the DRT directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of `36.00 lakhs.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had borrowed a sum of `1.40 crores from respondent Nos.2 to 4 and for non-payment of EMIs, respondent bank proceeded to issue notice under Section 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ’SARFAESI Act). Against the said notice, the petitioner filed an appeal before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘DRT’ for short) raising various contentions. The tribunal considering the interim application filed, by the order dated 28.08.2019 stayed the operation of possession notice issued by the respondent Bank-SBI, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of `18.00 lakhs on or before 12.09.2019 and another sum of `18.00 lakhs on or before 27.09.2019 into the loan account for first respondent bank and directed that on the next date of hearing, the petitioner shall file a proof for having made such payment. Since the petitioner paid only `10.00 lakhs out of `36.00 lakhs, the DRT by the order dated 30.09.2019 vacated the interim order on the ground of non-compliance of the interim order passed by it. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in terms of the interim order granted by the DRT, out of `36 lakhs, the petitioner has already deposited `10 lakhs. He submits that a sum of `10 lakhs will be deposited within a period of one week and another sum of `16 lakhs will be deposited within a period of one week, thereafter. The submission is placed on record.
6. Sri Tulasi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the total amount due payable by the petitioner as per the possession notice is `1.40 crores. Since the petitioner failed to comply the interim order granted, the Tribunal is justified in vacating the interim order. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner borrowed loan from first respondent-bank. For non payment of the loan amount within the time, the bank issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, that was subject matter of S.A.No.281/2019 before the DRT, Bengaluru. It is also not in dispute that the DRT granted interim order staying the operation of the possession notice subject to petitioner depositing `36 lakhs within the time frame, i.e., `18 lakhs on or before 12.09.2019 and another sum of `18 lakhs on or before 27.09.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner has complied with the interim order in-part, by depositing `10 lakhs and failed to deposit the remaining sum of `26 lakhs before the last date fixed by the DRT.
8. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum of `10 lakhs within one week and another `16 lakhs in one week thereafter, in the interest of justice, it is suffice to extend the interim order granted by the DRT for adjudication of the case between the parties.
9. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off. The order dated on 30.09.2019 passed by the DRT is hereby quashed. The interim order granted by the DRT dated 28.08.2019 is hereby restored subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit `26 lakhs before the 2nd respondent-bank within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order, failing which, the benefit of the extension of interim order granted by this Court shall stand vacated. If the said amount is deposited within time, the DRT shall proceed in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-
kcm
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri D H Ramesh vs Reserve Bank Of India And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
19 November, 2019
Judges
  • B Veerappa