IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.41394 OF 2018 (GM - RES) BETWEEN:
SRI SAI SAPTAGIRI SPONGE PRIVATE LTD., REGD. OFFICE: NO.83/A, TUMATI ROAD, BELGAL VILLAGE – 583 104, BELLARY TQ & DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR DR.P.RAMAKRISHNA CHOWDARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUNIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.A.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR – STATE BANK BHAVAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, MADAME CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI – 400 021.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BR.
LOCAL HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, ST.MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SR.ADVOCATE AND SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) (VIDE ORDER DATED 26.09.2018 NOTICE SERVED TO PANEL COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO SETTLE THEIR ENTIRE DUES UNDER APPLICABLE OTS SCHEME WITHOUT ANY DISCRETIONS AND DISCRIMINATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ANNEXURE – F AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. Muniraj, learned counsel for Sri.M.A.Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned senior counsel & Sri.Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, inter alia, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent- Bank to settle the entire dues under the One Time Settlement Scheme contained in Annexure ‘F’ 3. By way of amendment, petitioner seeks to challenge the notice issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned senior counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the respondents No.1 and 2 have already rejected the proposal submitted by the petitioner under the One Time Settlement Scheme on 22.10.2018 and in respect of an order passed under Section 13(4) of the Act, petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.
5. In view of the fact that the offer submitted by the petitioner under the One Time Settlement Scheme has already been rejected by respondent No.1-Bank by an order dated 22.10.2018, the relief claimed in the writ petition has been rendered infructuous on account of afflux of time. However, the relief which is sought to be incorporated with regard to challenge to an order under Section 13(4) of the Act, suffice it to say, that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act.
6. This Court, by an order dated 30.1.2019, passed in W.P.No.6594/2018 has already held that against an order passed under Section 13(4) of the Act, normally, the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. No extraordinary circumstances have been pointed out by the petitioner in this case to enable him to bypass the statutory remedy.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of, with the liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy provided to him under Section 17 of the Act.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp