IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.48644 OF 2017 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
SRI. THRIPURANTHANA MURTHY, S/O SRI H. C. SIDDAGANGAPPA, AGE 55 YEARS, R/AT; NO.5/6, VIDYAMANYA NAGAR, ANDRAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-560 091.
(BY. SRI. MARKANDA SHETTY FOR SRI. N. SURESHA, ADV.) AND:
1. RECOVERY OFFICER –II, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, NO.4, LIC FIRST FLOOR, JEEVAN MANGAL BUILDING, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025.
2. CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH-I, NO.86, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE -560001.
3. SMT. C. MAMATHA, W/O THRIPURANTHANA MURTHY, R/AT NO.5/6, VIDYAMANYA NAGAR, ANDRAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-560 091.
(BY SRI. B. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV FO R-2. SRI. V. HARIDHAR BHAT, ADV FOR R-2, … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS SRI. BHASKARAN, ADV FOR R-3 R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED ) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RECOVERY OFFICER TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 25.9.2017 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS AT ANNX-H BY R-1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Markanda Setty for Sri.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.B.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.No.2.
Sri.V.Hardas Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Sri.Bhashkaran, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to the Recovery Officer to quash the orders dated 25.09.2017 and entire proceedings which is at Annexure-H.
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction to the respondent No.2 to accept the offer of OTS scheme as per Annexure-A.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondent-Bank submitted that the order passed by the Recovery Officer, is appealable under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. In view of the judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON AND ORS.’, (2010) 8 SCC 110, writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy i.e., an appeal provided under the Act.
5. It is needless to state that in case the petitioner resorts to the remedy mentioned above within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS