IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 14933/2019 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
SRI.RAMANJINI K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A NO.341, 4TH MAIN OMBR LAYOUT DDDABANASWADI BANGALORE-560043 (BY SRI. M SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., 373/1, GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 004.
(BY SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R (CP NO.5060/2019)) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (DRT-I) AT BANGALORE IN S.A.NO.78/2019 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.M.Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Kumar.K. learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.03.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The impugned order reads as under:
“Learned counsels for both submits. Interim order not complied – Appellant filed I.A. for extension of IO I.A. rejected and I.O. vacated. Respondent filed objections, copy served For hearing 12/6/2019”.
4. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has availed mortgage loan of Rs.7 crore and has already deposited Rs.2 crore and sought for extension of time for depositing the balance amount. However, the aforesaid prayer has been rejected by the Tribunal by a non-speaking order.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent was unable to point out any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal having been passed without assigning any reasons.
6. Undoubtedly, it is true that the petitioner has remedy for filing an appeal u/s.18 of the of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). However, the aforesaid remedy is not efficacious.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 21.03.2019 being passed without assigning any reasons, is therefore quashed and the same is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal to decide the application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within ten days from today.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/