IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.21867 OF 2014 (GM-KSFC) BETWEEN:
SRI. THANGAVELU M S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, 11TH CROSS, NANJAPPA LAYOUT NEW BOMMASANDRA VIDHYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097 (BY SRI. NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADV.) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT: NO.1/1 , THIMMAIAH ROAD, NEAR CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION, BENGALURU – 560 052 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER KSFC, M.G.ROAD BRANCH OFFICE-18, II FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001 … PETITIONER 3. M/S OM PACKAGING INDUSTRIES NO.25, SURVARNA COMPLEX OPPOSITE TO LIC BRANCH YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 054 REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. P. C. GANESH, S/O CHENGALRAYAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. SMT. SELVI, W/O P.C.GANESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.S 17, KRISHNA VILLA KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD, DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097 (PROPRIETRIX OF M/S OM GRAPHICS) 5. SRI. N.G. NAGENDRA S/O LATE GURUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A NO. 526, II MAIN ROAD, II CROSS , ASHWATHKATTE ROAD, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT VIDYARANAYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1 & R2; SRI. T. I. ABDULLA, ADV. FOR R5;
R3 & R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN I.R.NO.1164/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Nischal Dev B.R., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Sri. T.I. Abdulla, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
In this petitioner, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Call for entire records on the file of the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.R. No.1164/2013 as per Annexure-C.
b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or any other order quashing the order dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru in dismissing the I.A.No.2633/2013 as a result of which dismissing the main application in I.R. No.1164/2013 as per Annexure-C.
c) Consequently set-aside the auction sale taken place from 26.11.2012 to 11.12.2012 through E-auction in respect of the schedule property, confirmation of sale and consequently cancel the sale certificate dated 01.03.2013 registered as document No.BYP-1- 08289-2012-13 Book No.1, stored in CD No. BYPD158, registered on 04.03.2013 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar (Byatarayanapura), Bengaluru in favour of the 5th respondent executed by the 2nd respondent, produced at Annexure-A9.
d) To set aside the impugned order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the learned IV ACMM at Bengaluru in Crl. Misc. Petition No.2867/2012 filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Interests Act, 2002 in so far as it relates to the schedule property, which is produced at Annexure-A11.
e) Pass any other writ or order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. In view of the fact that the alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, the same is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case the petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal with regard to all their grievances by filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Act.
3. Needless to state that in case such an appeal is filed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall invoke the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and shall decide the appeal which may be preferred by the petitioner on merits.
4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
5. With the aforesaid liberty, petition is disposed of.
6. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed of.
Mds/-
Sd/- JUDGE