IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.16236 OF 2019(GM-DRT) Between:
1. Sri.Sharath Rukmangada, S/o late Sri.N.B.Rukmangada, Aged about 39 years, Residing at No.67, Lavina Courts, 102, 1st Floor, 7th Cross, R.M.V Extension, Bengaluru – 560 080.
2. Smt.Shruthi Rukmangada, D/o late Sri.N.B.Rukmangada, Aged about 43 years, Residing at No.67, Lavina Courts, 102, 1st Floor, 7th Cross, R.M.V Extension, Bengaluru – 560 080.
(By Sri.Ajesh Kumar.S, Adv. for Sri.Ashwin, C, Adv.) And:
1. Cauvery Papers Limited (in Liqn.,) Represented by the Official Liquidator, High Court of Karnataka, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Corporate Bhavan, … Petitioners No.26-27, 12th Floor, Raheja Towers, M.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. IFCI Limited, (Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited) Represented by its Manager, N.R. Square (Hudson Circle), IFCI Bhawan, 4th Floor, No.3, Cubbonpet Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.
(By Sri.Avinash.B, Adv. for Sri.Subramani K.N, Adv. for C/R2) … Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 27.03.2019 and 03.04.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer-I, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru TRC No.932/2017 (DCP No.3096) in O.A.No.872/1999 at Annexure-A and B as Non-est, illegal and arbitrary and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Ajesh Kumar.S, learned counsel for Sri.Ashwin.C, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.Avinash.B, learned counsel for Sri.Subramani.K.N, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seek for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the orders dated 27.03.2019 and 03.04.2019 passed by Recovery Officer-I, Debts Recovery Tribunal – II Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’ for short) in TRC No.932/2017 (D.C.P.No.3096) of O.A.No.872/1999.
3. The facts giving raise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioners purchased the Schedule Item No.I(i) property by registered Sale Deed on 02.03.2005. The aforesaid property was not the subject matter of any hypothecation, mortgage or loan transaction with the respondent - Bank. It is further averred in the writ petition that the aforesaid property was not the subject matter of the proceedings before the DRT in O.A.No.872/1999. Eventually, an order was passed by the DRT against the father of the petitioners on 22.12.2003. The petitioners are admittedly not parties in the aforesaid proceedings. It appears that the respondent - Bank filed an application before the DRT on 27.03.2019 seeking to recover the assets belonging to the petitioners. Thereupon, the DRT has issued the Warrant of Attachment by an order, which has been impugned in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not even parties in the proceedings before the DRT and no encumbrance in any sort is created of which the petitioners are the absolute owner. The impugned order is therefore, per se without jurisdiction.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 was unable to point out from the records that either property in question has been mortgaged with the respondent - Bank or any encumbrance has been created in respect of the property in question or the petitioners are parties to the proceedings.
6. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. Since the impugned order has been passed by the DRT without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and prima facie it appears that no encumbrance has been created in favour of the respondent – Bank, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, it is hereby quashed.
7. Needless to state that it will be open to the DRT to issue notice to the petitioners and afford an opportunity of hearing to him and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-