IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.54785 OF 2017 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
1. M/S TECHSOURCE EMERGING INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., REGD. OFFICE AT NO.2484, 16TH E MAIN HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 038 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. P T MANUEL S/O MR. P.M. THOMAS AGED 41 YEARS.
2. MR. P.T. MANUEL S/O MR. P.M. THOMAS AGED 41 YEARS ALAPPATT PALATHINGAL HOUSE SHORANUR ROAD, THIRUVAMBADY P.O. THRISSUR-680 022.
… PETITIONERS (By Mr. G.L. MOHAN MAIYA, ADV. FOR Mr. KESHAVA BHAT A, ADV.,) AND:
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR, ROUND SOUTH THRISSUR, KERALA-680 001 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.
… RESPONDENT (By Mr. M. ANANTHAKUMAR, ADV.,) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:13.11.2017 IN I.R.NO.2917/2017 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1 BENGALURU [ANNEXURE-A]. CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1 BENGALURU TO CONSIDER THE DISPOSE OF I.R.NO.2917/2017 ON MERITS. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT TO MAINTAIN STATUS-QUO DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ABOVE W.P. & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.G.L.Mohan Maiya for Mr.Keshava Bhat A., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.M.Ananthakumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) by which the application filed by the petitioners under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been rendered with a liberty to the petitioners to present the same before the Tribunal having jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it is evident that notice for recovery of the debt has been served to the petitioners in the State of Kerala. Admittedly, the registered societies are located in Kerala and the Directors of the petitioners are the residents of Kerala. The financial assistance extended to the branch of the Bank is situated in Trishur in the State of Kerala. Therefore, in view of Sub-Section (1A) of Section 17 of the Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The order passed by the Recovery Officer does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Tribunal having jurisdiction with regard to the subject matter of the dispute.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS