IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.3350-3353 OF 2018 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHESHAMAL M JAIN AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS SON OF LATE MIYACHANDJI RESIDING AT NO.10/3 N P PUBLIC SCHOOL ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.
2. SMT. UMA RAMESH WIFE OF SRI RAMESH BABU RESIDING AT NO.51 GANDHI BAZAR MAIN ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560004.
3. SMT. CHAYA AMARANATH MAJOR WIFE OF SRI AMARNATH RESIDING AT NO.797 11TH "A" MAIN, 2ND PHASE J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.
4. SMT. S A SRILAKSHMI WIFE OF SRI S A ADINARAYANA MURTHY MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.V-84, 3RD CROSS, MALLESWHARAM BENGALURU-560004.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.RAJENDRA M A, ADVOCATE) AND 1. M/S. VIJAYA BANK MAYO HALL BRANCH MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.
2. SRI B LAKSHMAN SON OF SRI BABU RESIDING AT NO.131 SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560020.
3. SMT. SHANTHA GOWDA WIFE OF B LAKSHMAN RESIDING AT NO.131 SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560020 4. SRI NAGESH SON OF LATE S T KRISHNAPA RESIDING AT NO.386 2ND "B" MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560070.
... RESPONDENTS THESE APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION Nos.35590-593/2018 ON 18/9/2018 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DRT-II, BENGALURU IN S.A. NO.3/2018 BASED ON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CMM COURT, BENGALURU, WHICH ORDER IS ALSO NOT IN CONFORMITY OF THE PROVISION OF THE ACT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT There is a delay of 51 days in preferring the appeal. However, we have heard the arguments on the merits of the matter.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.35590-35593 of 2018, relegating the appellants to an alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the writ petitioners have preferred these appeals.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has a very good case on merits and in all probability there is likelihood to succeed in the writ Court.
4. However, we do not find any merit in these appeals.
Since an alternate remedy of an appeal has been provided against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it is appropriate that the appellants approach the Appellate Tribunal and avail the alternate and efficacious remedy.
5. Under these circumstances, with the above observation, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, issuance of notice on delay would be a futile exercise. Hence, the appeal is dismissed on merits and also on delay.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG*CT:bms