Smt. Sheela Dilip Kumar Shah vs Recovery Officer on 5 January, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Sheela Dilip Kumar Shah vs Recovery Officer on 5 January, 2011

Bench: B.S.Patil

IN THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05% BAY OF JANUARY, 201-1,
BEFORE V V V
TLHZE HoN'm..E MRJUSTICE B.S. P.:£ffIL:ATV'V 'V 
W.P.Nos.15665~668/2018 .fGM-I)RV.V'f1VVv    
W.P.Nos.1544o--442/2010..(GM--1:)RfI'} . ~. '
IN vcr.p.Nos.:5665~668/2016:  A V V
1, Sm£..Shee1a Difip Kuni'a:V*VV } V
W/0 Sm' Dilip Kumar Shah,  1
Aged 52 years.» V ' " V'

R/at: No. 191,. "i';=*I.r:;é.fVV_1€)I 
A.M'.Lar1e. 4_C--:,:.rré%f:;._v_Compéegsz,   .

Chikpet (Eire:-'..s_=V%';. V VV
.Bar1g2110rc»E33~-.-- 1f;__

2. Sri Vjjay_ K£.é':i:.:;r..._c7:;sh.a1§';"-.,___ .
S / 0 Sri Cha;;drVakar11"h_;J':S4h;1h,
Aged 48.Vyéa.rs,  V  '

3. Sm.i;BhaVaf1-2.. KV.SEVV1ahV;
W/~i:3. Sr'; Kiran KL::11_ar'C.ShaI3.

   yéarsg

 t'V,;J;V:1V§;a:«3.s'hV1'e.c .V.£V).Sh ah,

'W £0' I)im»j'_gh VE,i1V,1n1ar C.Shah,
Agfgred 59 ~}7€§},:I'S.

 2 to 4 .a}Fe residing at M1105/5.

 *C,h.ar11aV:1.1a1 & Co..
!)f.S§'j£,aI3t?, ChIVCkpI';?i. Cmsst

V"..E3zi1ig211r::r:3--ié6O 053. PETITIONERS

 V Vtfﬁy' ' VSr:'1t,. E->r21E"1";j'r::a I18. , Ad 12}



ANB:
1. R€€)G'V{:3I"}' Of}i"i.Cer.

Debts Eaecowzry 'Fribuma1,
Krishi. Bhavarl, Hudson Czrcie.
Bar1gf21Iore».36O O01 .

M/s.SILat.e Barzk <31" Indm.

Repby ias .Mar1z«1ger.

Jayanagar Second E3I0€k Eﬁranch.
Jayamagar, Bazxgalore.

{By Sri K.Pmkash, Adv. for R2)

IR.1 182/O9 in E.A.No.23vD_8",509 _3is1_r1issi.r1g'~£he appeal filed under
Section 30 of the Dtébt RecV0VeI';z__'§ri:bL1i"a2§iA.A(:tVvide Azlnexurewivi

and etc.

H. REsvc§ﬁENis_  

These \2vr:'i pet'itio.r1s 21F€V>{ﬂ:v€;'{';..V'L1E}Ci.€"I'.ATtiQi€%$  22'?
of the Constiiuiicyrx of India prayiL;1g"tQ qL1ashA_ the oiﬁer passerrf
by the Presiding Off1'Cer,__I)eb't RecQVe_ry'--».f1'1*ibL1naE,.Bangalore, in

BETwEEN;. °

E .

Sri V.GOx.rardha11'3. R36 }?eiwa.r,
S/0 late V'er1k.oba'Rao P:»3:Wa1',
Agﬁd  years,' ' V '
Rf;§'«i.di;__1g at No.4,' 3?<?..C:'oss.

 .Laksh'mi Ni'..-{£18, Nehrunagar,

  Residxvrzg' at N0. 13, N.S.Iyeng;"ar S'{l'I'€{":1,.
., 'E€*.S_:Iyeng2ar Street. Sﬁﬁhéldripiilﬂlll.
"  3fc_1r_1gaEo1'::~20.

V  'S/0 ism: \f<;2z1k(;132;1 Rm?) Pawszir.

' ,S€sh.a<:if1'~p:L1r;i3n. Bangalore-20.

'S1'i'-VKJei1;aéij;--*ci}ﬁ2111 R30 Pawar.

S /:6; Ia1i_r:~'{e}:V'1k0ba R210 Pawar,
Ag"ea;§ 60' years.

E§r.i i\1'h.:1'IE.dhar Raw I:'z1wan

figeci 53:9 :»,-'€'.éiI'S.*3.,



Residjxig at Fig.4, 3?" C1-0553.
Laksshmi Nivas. Nel1.run23gar,
Seshac%1*1'puram. Banga]0re~2O.  PETITIGNERS

({3}! Sz1'1i.Pmi'.i1iba D.S.. A<:iv. i'"<:>1'
S1': I)..N.MaI1j'L1nai'h, Adv.)

AND:

1. Rs:-:-eevery Ofﬁ.ce1*,
Debts Recovery Tri'm1n:~1l.   ._
Krishi. Bhavan, I-Iudson Circle,
B21ngaIC:.1'ee56O 001.

2' M/s.Si.ate Bank' ef India,

Rep.by its Mariager,  
Jayanagar Second Block B1"a:r1eh-,     
Jayanagar, E3a.11gr-Horez';   *  j  RESPONDENTS

[By Sri K,1Pra.kash, Adv. f'<3a19AQ{~1_;Z] "   

These w<rif'-«;31ei;it.ieris*vaife i'i.1_ed ufnder Articles 226 and 227'
of the C'v:£)"I"i"§3Vi,IE?_.1,v,1a'§;VI'OI1"i')f'II1(§i§§' praiyiﬁg to quash the order dated
12.4.2010 passed ~._t)7y i.h_e"'v.P_::es'iding Officer, Debi" Recovezy
T1'ibu11a1;'V_BémgaE01*e«,f"dis'i::iiSs,i11g the appeal filed under Section
30 of the Debi, iReco.ve"fy'Tri'b1_;i1a1 AC1: vide Annexure~»};V1' and etc.

Thesge writ petif,i01':s coming on for preliminary hearing

~ V. this  i_._he _C<:.:.11.*i"'ri1a.de'i,he foIIowing:«
ORDER

1. A*-._I_r1 f_i'}*1t;%.<~:eF' ﬁvrii, pe't,ii.ions, pe'i.iii(>m:31'S are c:}iaIIengiIig the " daziieecit' 12.04.2010 passed by the I3ebi's Recovery Triburiai. i§Ssi11g;1.E_§:;»1*c% d.isni11':;s:;i11g ihe 2i;.:>piic?a"£i():'1 fiieci {er cmadoziirig Lhe "--._«:1eE.2>§}ee' 21:11:} cc:»n:seq"r.1e11i,Iy the main mzazuer filed in ». _' :.é'i,Rii\5e, fi 182'/2€){}Q( i€~"'<;%i'::ii.ic)r1e1":":s 5:131:11 ie be the pur<:i12:1sse;{s; ('if Ehcsr gr ;.3r0peri.y" which was the subjezct n1ad,t.er of rI1<)1"tga§ge in favour of r'essp<)r1denE ?\}'»:},2 --~ Bank. Respondenéi No.2 had i.11stitui'.ed proeeeciirzgs in @aEXuN£)s.£205/1995 aga1'.I1si' the rrlartgager frezm whom the property is pLIrchased by the p€T§.iUOI}f:3I'S' {rig said p1'0<;ee<:iings. 'Fr1'bunaE passed an order dated 29. 1__£)'.' on the said order, recovery" p1'0ceeéing$ in D.C._.E?.__:E'£Q;2-f$'?8;'f?,OG3 were instituted before the Recovery {)ffi_eezj, 'ReVt1g&-ie1*y ' Tribunai, Ba.;r1ga101'e. Peiitioners filecfari'V-app1ic3;1.,iof1 &bef'§3re.r?;1§erV Recovery C)ffice1* asserting thai. E:hey are the "ya;-A'V1*<:1'r.$..2:.se1's of the part. of the property and iéve1_*e e_ri{ri1'eé':;'tonresist thveproceedings.

2. It is urged by the pe?:4ifi_o--nere ':V1iV?---.'§39.2O0?, an order was ';e:épp:>'11de1§ i'tbV"raring the entire property to sale. petmoners had preferred an appeal befﬁre Debt, Recovery Tf'ibLI}.'1El1, in LR. .1.82/ with an application under Section 5 of "'e:.¢ i;§z'11ii;éi'i:£()};~~Act seeking eond0:1at1'on of delay in ﬁling the said Recovery 'I.'rib'L1n211, having heard the parties.

has ,};)E;1SS£§_('1'ﬂ§:£'L iII1})'i.i&'~§,1'1€fC1 order c£ismissi11g "the appiicaiion ﬂied 'for <::01.1.d0r1ing the deiay and c:o11seqL:ent}y, dismissing the "..:e2:pn;Jea},_f11e<i in {R N03 182/2009 by i'£::~:e order C}£1{.f3d E2.0«'1».iZO10.

-- ﬂltu order thai. challerxged F:>e§1:}:'e {hie €911.11; , 3%"/X .. 9 =

3. L«ea1-med eounsei for the petitioners strongiy coruellds t.ha'i:

the pet.i£'ior1e1's who are the purellasers of the pro{_i'<.r;'%':}f are en1ii_i.1ed to .mai:1ta1'n these petziiiorlss 2133 {here 2';§ vi(ifa.i)ie.i'zVof principles of r1a'tum1 jL1.STfi(?(;' and that they h21vcé"A«:1e't.};::ei3 Vhegird' befbre the pr'0peI"ty was brotxghi. {c}1'""Sz11e, I;ea.r_zée}:i'v'.g:*:>1z'u§§eI 'for T the ;::et.i.t:ioner8 has relied upon the jf'L1dg':11ez1i' GE' .t..he.VA.pex .'(Z.'1( )u.1jt reported in the case of SATWATi_f)'ESWAI: vs.'sj14A*r1§'~-b"E"HARYANA AND OTHERS {(2010) 1 SCC;_1.26} _:;~;a£ é1IE:e.r11.a{ive remedy need not be exhausI,ec:IV'{§v1%ere"i'}}e,V 13aturaE justicse hzave been gross1yA'*.rie1aT,a.d}'""E ;i£3, £i case where the 2"" pr<>cee<:iings against the r11.ort.gagez*V.t;e:- sale. Prima facie. 1 find that t:he:v;gr0_§ﬁ1A<A§$e.'2,g gross violation of principles of rxatural into service. At any rate, the ratio lfaié xdox-=vu11'-.i;*1 V'c;*'9:e j*:.1dgI:r1en'(. referred {(3 supra Cannot, be }f11ade""z1pf3'iie2£bIe to the facts of the present' case as that was a. Vt:e2:s§c:e_e~\x.rhefe~.e.$r;:rﬁrie.<:ts of em emplayee were ier'r11ina1;.ed Wiiheut, p1'c)\?1~:ii11g .~az_1 f.:é)ppo:°i,u11i'i:y of being heard. Under sucth.

-'..__t;:.i.rcur11s{.a1)ees. the Ape): C0'uI"€' held that': the I"iigI1 Court wars 1101. ' j'u._st:iﬁeE7i in deciinizzg the relief on the gr'0u.z1d t'.h_at. an a1.Eter1121E:ive :"er21iedy was avazilabie E0 the er;r1p}.0yee. 'I'heref"are. I do not fin-:3 . _' fizzy S-5U.bS'i.£1§'Z{",fs';'f in 1",h.c:% :7<>131,e:mf'.i()x1 amgeci by the pet.1'.i:.i01"1er.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court