IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.51326/2019(GM-DRT) 1 . MS. U. LISHA D/O SRI A. S. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 2 . MS. U. MANISHA D/O SRI A. S. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 3 . MS. U. SUSHMITHA D/O SRI A. S. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 4 . MS. U. RAKSHITHA D/O SRI A. S. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.29, ‘B’ EAST LINK ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003 PRESENTLY RESIDING(AFTER SEIZURE) NO.90, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, KGES LAYOUT RMV II STAGE, NEW BEL ROAD BANGALORE-94.
5 . M/S SUMA OIL AGENCIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT. SUMA UMASHANKAR 6 . SMT. SUMA UMASHANKAR W/O SRI UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.507, 1ST FLOOR PILLANNA GARDEN 3RD STAGE, NEAR BILAL MASJID COMPLEX NAGAVARA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560045.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJENDRA M. A., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER IDBI BANK LIMITED NO.102, SHAKHI COMFORT TOWERS KH ROAD, BENGALURU-27 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DRT-II, BANGALORE IN D.No.586/2019 IN TRC No.2238/2017 IN O.A. No.1158/2012 ON 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER ON 8.2.2019 ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner filed the memo dated 29.11.2019 stating that he is not pressing the relief insofar as Annexure-B is concerned i.e., the order passed by the Recovery Officer dated 08.02.2019, against which the Appeal filed came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The submission is placed on record. The prayer insofar as Annexure-B is dismissed as not pressed.
2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru, in D.No.586/2019 in TRC No.2238/2017 in O.A.No.
1158/2012 contending that the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioners on the ground that, ‘the appellants in the appeal memo have stated that the application is filed within 30 days from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the entire order sheet along with objection filed etc. and that cannot be accepted for delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation’.
3. The petitioners herein filed D.No.586/2019 in TRC No.2238/2017 in O.A.No. 1158/2012 against the Order dated 08.02.2019 made in TRC/2238/2017 in DRT-2/ Bengaluru (out of OA 1158/2012), passed by the Recovery Officer-2, DRT-2, Bengaluru.
4. Admittedly, the Recovery Officer passed the Order on 08.02.2019. The presentation of application for certified copy was made on 28.02.2019. The certified copy was ready and delivered on 01.03.2019. The appeal was filed before the Presiding Officer on 21.03.2019 (learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was filed on 25.03.2019), within the time stipulated.
5. The provisions of Section 30(1) and (2) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993, reads as under:
30. Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
(2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under sections 25 to 28.
6. A careful perusal of the said provisions, makes it clear that, “any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal”.
7. In view of the above, the reasoning given by the Tribunal that the application is not filed within thirty days from the date of obtaining the certified copy cannot be accepted and the Tribunal cannot dismiss the appeal mainly on the ground that the appeal is not filed within thirty days from the date of the Order, when the statute prescribes that the appeal has to be filed within thirty days from the date of issuance of the certified copy. Therefore, on that short ground alone, the impugned Order cannot be sustained.
8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed, holding that the application filed by the petitioner is within the time stipulated under Section 30 of the Act. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to proceed afresh, on merits, in accordance with law.
kcm Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE