IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.936/2019 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
SRI. DHARMAPPA S/O LATE SRI THIMMEGOWDA @ VELAPURIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT ‘NAMMANE’, 11TH CROSS BHAGATH SINGH ROAD, 2ND STAGE JAYANAGARA HASSAN-573 201 ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI. K.M. SOMASHEKARA ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. C.R. GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGER CORPORATION BANK N.R. CIRCLE BRANCH HASSAN-573 201 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER CORPORATION BANK REGIONAL OFFICE VOIP NO.5 MYSURU ROAD, 1ST FLOOR ESI DIP BUILDING KASTURBA NAGARA BENGALURU-560 026 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CORPORATION BANK ZONAL OFFICE NO.2254 ’KOUSALYA’, 3RD FLOOR VINOBA ROAD, MYSURU-570 005 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. V.B.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3 (VK NOT FILED));
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 11/02/2019 VIDE WP NO.28571/2018 [GM-DRT] CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The delay of two days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application I.A.No.2/2019 stands disposed of.
3. The order dated 26th March 2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal was subjected to a challenge before the learned Single Judge by the present appellant by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that against the impugned order dated 26th March 2018, a remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) was available. Therefore, the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the appellant to a remedy under the statute. The learned Single Judge by making necessary observations in paragraph No.6 ensured that if an appeal was preferred by the appellant within the time specified there under, the delay will not come in the way of the appellant.
4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant are on merits of the controversy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He is unable to dispute the correctness of the finding regarding the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
5. By an ad-interim order dated 27th March 2019 this Court put a restraint on the respondents on confirming the sale in e-auction subject to appellant depositing a sum of ` 10 lakhs within a period of two weeks. Admittedly, the appellant has not deposited the said amount.
There is no error in the impugned order and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Pending applications do not survive for consideration.
They are also disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE SPS Sd/- JUDGE