IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.29856 OF 2018 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
Sri.N.H.Rustumji, S/o. Homi Rustumji, Aged 74 years, G-15, Richmond Towers, Richmond Road, Bengaluru-560 025.
(By Sri.L.M.Chidanandayya, Advocate for Sri. Premnath N.T, Advocate) AND:
1. The Registrar, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, 4th Floor, Indian Bank Circle Office, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai-600 008.
2. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, South Block, New Delhi-100 001.
… Petitioner 3. Central Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, No.75-76, Commercial Street, Bengaluru-560 025.
Represented by the Chief Manager.
4. M/s. Stone Line, Represented by its Proprietor Mr.M.Selva Pandian Aged about 60 years, No.21, 12th Cross, 1st Floor, Indiranagar, 1st Stage, Bengaluru-560 038.
… Respondents (By Sri.Aditya Singh, Advocate for R1 & R2 Sri. M.Mohamed Ibrahim, Advocate for Sri.Eshwar Prasad, Advocate for R3;
V/o dated 2.11.2018 notice to R4 is dispensed with) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned office note/endorsement bearing Dy.No.89 dated 19.02.2018 vide Annexure-M issued by R-1 to the petitioner and direct the R1 to take the application on record and post the same before the chairperson of DRAT to disposed off in accordance of law.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for Sri.Premnath N.T., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Aditya Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Sri.M.Mohamed Ibrahim, learned counsel for Sri.Eshwar Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of both parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of office memorandum dated 19.02.2018 issued by the office of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘the DRAT’) and to direct respondent No.1 to take the application on record and place the same before the Chairperson of the DRAT, Chennai.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a guarantor in respect of loan transaction of respondent No.4. It is also pointed out that respondent No.4 defaulted in making the payment of the loan. Thereupon, the recovery certificate was issued. The petitioner filed MA No.73/2007, before the DRAT, Chennai. In the aforesaid appeal, the appellate Tribunal passed an interim order dated 31.05.2007 by which, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20 lakhs with the respondent – Bank. It is further submitted that subsequently, the loan account of respondent No.4 has been settled as another guarantor has made the payment of the amount. Eventually, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default on 06.03.2008. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application seeking refund of the amount of Rs.20 lakhs as well as return of title deeds. However, by an office memorandum, the aforesaid application has been rejected and not even placed before the Chairperson of the DRAT.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid office memorandum be quashed and the application be placed before the Chairperson of the DRAT and the DRAT be directed to deal with the aforesaid application in accordance with law.
6. The fact that the loan account of respondent No.4 has been settled has not been disputed by respondent No.3 – Bank.
7. In view of the fact that the loan account of respondent No.4 has already been settled, the application filed by the petitioner was required to be placed before the Chairperson of the DRAT to be dealt with in accordance with law. The impugned office memorandum dated 19.02.2018 is, therefore, quashed and it is directed that the application filed by the petitioner be placed for consideration before the Chairperson of the DRAT, who shall pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties by a speaking order, in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
8. Since the loan account has been settled, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the respondent - Bank for return of original documents and respondent No.3 shall take suitable action on the application which may be filed by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of such an application.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-