IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.7400 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S VIKRAM TRADERS NO 75/20 2ND FLOOR HULKAL COMPLEX OPP URVASHI THEATER LAL BAGH ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER SRI SUMEET BHANDARI S/O LATE SRI MANGILAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A NO 457 7TH MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011 (BY SMT. LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. D K SIDDHARTH, ADV.) AND:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA SME WILSON GARDEN BRANCH NO 24 COMFORT TOWER 10TH CROSS WILSON ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 (BY SRI. B N TULSI KUMAR, ADV.) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THAT PORTION OF THE ORDER DTD: 25.1.2018 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL IN I.A.NO.148 OF 2019 IN S.A.NO.2/2019 AT ANNEXURE-J DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT A SUM OF RS.1,25,00,000/- ON OR BEFORE 22.2.2019; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Lakshmy Iyengar, learned Senior Counsel Mr.D.K.Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.B.N.Tulsi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal insofar as it directs the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- on or before 08.02.2019 and a further sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- Crores on or before 22.02.2019. The petitioner also seeks quashment of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) dated 31.10.2018 and notice for possession dated 03.01.2019 issued under the Security interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 dated 03.01.2019 as well as notice dated 10.01.2018 issued under Section 13(4) of the Act.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that being aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents, the petitioner has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing a petition under Section 17 of the Act. By an interim order dated 25.01.2018, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2.5 Crores subject to which the sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner has been put on hold. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action taken against the petitioner suffers from procedural infirmity inasmuch as notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 31.10.2018. Thereafter, the notice was issued under the Rules on 03.01.2019 and thereafter, a notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act was issued on 10.01.2019 subsequently.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has controverted the aforesaid submissions. However, it is submitted that in pursuance of the sale notice, the sale has not taken place. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in default to the tune of Rs.10 Crores.
5. Be that as it may, in fact situation of the case, since, the petitioner ha already resorted to the alternative remedy provided under the statute under the Act, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the contentions raised by the rival parties in this petition. In the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the proceedings pending before it by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from today. Needless to state that till the proceedings are concluded by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the respondent-Bank shall not take possession of the secured assets.
With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS