IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.430 OF 2016 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
SRI.P.RAGHUNATH, S/O PEDDABOVI, AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O MUGALIKATTE VILLAGE, TALYA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK – 577 526, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501.
(BY SRI.B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND:
THE BRANCH MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, HOLALKERE BRANCH, HOLALKERE – 577 526, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501. (BY SRI. J. PRAKASH, ADV.) … PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU ON IA NO.5701/2014 & IR 3636/2014 DATED 30.10.2015 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE – F TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. J. Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of writ quashing the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bengaluru on IA 5701/2014 & IR.3636/2014 dated 30.10.2015 produced as Annexure-F to the writ petition.
b) Issue such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including as to the cost in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) is appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. In view of the judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON AND ORS.’, (2010) 8 SCC 110, writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy i.e., an appeal provided under the Act.
5. It is needless to state that in case the petitioner resorts to the remedy mentioned above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-