Gad Industries vs M/S Syndicate Bank on 4 February, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Gad Industries vs M/S Syndicate Bank on 4 February, 2011

Bench: B.S.Patil

WE' 4l~492w93/ZOE 1.

IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA AT BAN"GALC)RE

IDATEZD TEIIS TI:-113 04% DAY 0;? FEBRLUXRY, 201 .:

BEFORE   .

TLE--EE HUMBLE I'v'I'R.JUS'I'ECE    V' 

W.P.No.4492-4493/201'    _     
BETWEEN:   A    I 'L

1. GAD Industries,

Proprietor Zareen Ta},

W/0 Najamuddin,  .

Aged about 50 years, '  

R/at Flat No.50/D, " ' '  
Toobinakere industrial Area.' V
Mandya Taiuk, fais:-.9 V' ' '  _   Z
R/at 3"' Cr0s;3,'f3ha'nké£rn£!.g£ir,  _  
Mandya. ' T  " '  ..  

2" Smt.A3res1c1a Nazzalin, "   
W/0 Asadulla Kha12.gf_ "
Aged abo'u:'3r6years,A. ~ « _.
R/at _5""~ Crdss_,' Gar1dI'i'ina"gar;
V 1\/IaI.ijdyarATowr1,' "  A V
" "  _ Ma.nE1ya~..A  A.  """   PETITIONERS

 [Bty  "G,B-ﬁsiﬁatﬁagarayana, Adv.)

'M /s.syfac1:{:;;1e' Bank.

H " 'T 1 1," Ré'P.:3V Auihbrized Officer,

 ' Mandy"a..'Brat1ch,
' IX/1e:.ra(:iy9,. "SE1 gar Towrl,

 __ =Man';iya.  RESPONDENT

'*  K.RadI1esh Prabhzz. Adv. for

    ..M/s.Prabhu 81: Dave, Advs.)



'we 4492--9f3f2{}i 1
2

This writ, pemiozi is filed tinder Articles 226 8:. 227 of the
Constitution of India. prayirig to quash. the order passed by the
Deputy Comniissioiier, Mandya District, in CSE l\E0._MAG(5)
SATRFAESI/20/2010301 1 dated 6. 1.201 1 vide Ani1exure.--Aii'iled
by the responcient bank against the petitioners and etc: .e 

This petition coming on for preliminary 

this Clay, the Court: made the following:

ORDER

1. In this writ p€3t.i't1'OF}. petitioners:l'a1ie--Sreekingthe ireliefs: l l V' l {i} To issue a oi?i'clei*tii:oteiii.._&to c1i.1"asl'1'Vl:the order passed by .lCo:mVnitssioner, Manclya District, in cm)nome[s;sAa;~Aes1/20/2o1o« i 1 datcd"~oe.o1::2oii~~'vid¢'"Annggiure-A filed by the H the petitioner herein;

{ii} of mandamus or direct the V Res;ion.dent.¥Be1tik from invoking the jurisdiction :inde1A9'the___SARFAESI Act and to proceed with the Drecovery subject to the findings of irregularities of and its employees with respect to the .l.'ét:pfii;opriat.ion of the accounts by DRT in the feleoveijz proceedings in OA 686/20.10, and graiit ll any other relief or relief in the facts and circumstaiices ofthe case. in the iiit.erest. ofjustice. It is not in dispute that aggrieved by the possession A " 'tnotiee issued. the pemioners had preferred S.A.No.384/2010 Lincieif Section. 17 of the SecL1i~itisa1t:ion and Reeonsi:ruct:ion of $4 ,»»>** 'it W?-7 4492--93,7f2{}"i 1 Fizianeiai Assets and Enforcement. of Security Interest Ac:t."«2002 [he'reinafter referred to as 'the Act'. {or short). the peiidency of the said a_pp1ica't.i.on, an int.erin'1"'.__ord:e1f"dated 28.04.2010 was passed staying the possess.ior..Anoti_oe issued on 18.03.2010. Subsequently, the interirn border 26.07.2010. As a result, the' measures contemplated tinder theV:.p1<oV'i»si.onsa«oi"'*-the Act and moved the District Magist'r:tte'ui;.d.er:' seeking police protection for tzahiiig .Magistraie has passed on 06.01.2011 aiiowing protection to take over the t1tro"'properties being industriai sites. In one of is an industrial unit. It is at this S,t2_§1§ge that V'theﬁvpet,i:'f:ioner has approached this Court. _01'i1A_t;he«-jneanwhite, as referred to above. the Debts ReeoVe.r_3r has passed the order on 24.01.2011 0 00 ;iisn1is's;ingv--._thev application fiied under Section 17 of the Act. _0'0F'he main conteritiori of the learned Counsel for the ___petitio'i1e1's is that there was no occasion to the petitioners ts "chalienge A.n.nexure--A order before the Tribunai as it has been passed after the fitiiig of the application under Sectioii '17 of the 3;' we 449293/2.01 1 4 Actt. He fL1r"Lher con.iei1ds that since the OTS Scheme was in vogue and the respon_dent~Bank did no: extend the beriefii is the petitioners 'too seiile the ioan amount by avaiiing under the OTS scheme, the cause of action seekiiﬁg' fori.issi:e a writ of Inandarnus to the bank to coiisideif settiinig 'U"LffvV1O8:.'E1 by taking note of the OTS scheme is c1istm{:i'* that of the cause of action t1'1.ati_oecL1rsA.'io__approach"the":DRT"V under Section 17' of the anda.1;hVe'17eIore, this 'E*IIfi1}_.ﬁ)t31ZitiO1'1 is maintainable for the relief further contends that there are seveAi'--ai. in the matter which cannot?' application ﬂied under Section an appeal filed against the order passed' by t:heV_Debi's"'R__e'CoKreIy Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act, befoi*ev_VVt11es"miipeiiaie Tribunai. Leamed Counsel has

---.a_1so vcontennieéd thia'L«vi.h.ev bank was duty bound io act in a rai-ionai IE1E1'F1Hf°,f'a1_1d in the instant case the action of the bank ixg-.:;d£a1Ey iirraiionia-iand therefore permiti;ing the bank to proceed to invoke. Vcoeircive measures under Act. which provides for s:_rix1.geI1t'~ an;.:i hard measures, is not pemiissible. He has also I {hat since "there is a original appiication pen.d1'.ng '-«i%;iheg'e the bard; itself is seeking recoizery of the amount in .i'_4:O';2*i'.iI\Eo.686/201G. the bank shail noi be permitted to proceed aw 5 WP 4492-93/20 E .l.

under the Act irwoking stringeI1.t rneasnres when there are disputed questions to be adjudicated between the paI"'t_"'~'7.€S_:L'-,"Z'~.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondentwBai3k"«'.h.asjV'rsiiong'l_§r refuted the contentions of the petitio'ner"s« and h:1sl"nrgjed--ilIi,hai Section .1 7(3) provides for consideiilatido-nil of grievance oi" the petitioners wit.l1.ve4"'fegardV. to 1;h§;of thell bank. He contends that the provis.i'ons"-»of thelzkctvihave been upheld and it is declared the the case of M/S. TRANSCORE vs U'l'_l10__N o;«*"'iNnii1_:&~.ijANR.- 2007 so 712, that the banlg. «is"'ventIi_il.ecl"t'o._resor'i."tov'the~ provisions of the Act even when recovery are pending.

5. Havingcorlsvidleredthe«l;»ontentions of the learned Counsel __for thejjartries and careful perusal of the pleadings and the V.'v.1d0:'g-uzﬁflmﬁltfusi produced. it is clear that the petitioners had in fact ilthe Recovery 'i'ribur1al, Bangalore, under V V' Section" l7§oi the Act challenging the possession notice issued.

7."PeniiOners"'have taken several contentions before the Debts Tribunal including the question regarding failure of hank to settle the loan due from the petitioners by taking A"'"not.e of one tirne settlement scheme. The Tribunal has rejected ihese coriteniions of the petiiioners. There is an appeal 'NE-7 4492593/'2{}§ 1 provided against the order passed by the Tribtihal as per Section 18 of the Act, to the Appellate "{'ribuna1._;~~._lg1il'-the contentioris that are urged against the action of 'Sue that can be urged under the provisionsmof Seci.ioh" 'L7' Ollltheo A571,," "

are available to be urged before Appellarte v::;_i't cannot be said that the Appellate '1'__1'iburla1 'xi/ill I1ot"b.ev.er1t:i'i'i13edtot"

go into the question regarding alleged irrational approach of to the measures including the so~ca1led disp1,1Vted petitioners are trying to it is a serious handica for thi:~:z' Court 'toxer'abai*k Ijfoon examination of such P , _ __ . .. 1 facts in exercise.ofl'rheaL:Writl'j1;ii*isdiction. The Apex Court in the case of UNITQD V3A:~r_I§' :'_1.z~:D1A vs SATYAWATI TANDON & Q AIR 2619 SC 3413, has held that the proper course party is to approach the Tribunals before whorfrthev"al'rerr1~atiire remedy is provided and not to knock at V V the doors theglwligh Court under Articles 226 8: 227. .VV("3"ounsel for the respondent is right and justified in lV"'i.._""p'laic'iEng reliance on the judgment in the case of M/S. "jrRANscoRE vs UNION or INDIA & ANR. --- AIR 2007 so 712, While contending that the perzdericy of the original applicatiorl 'NP 4-.492--93/20] ] i\i'o.E386/2010 is no bar to the bank to initiate proceedings uridei' the Act'. Therefore, I do not find any f1'1€3I'i§.VV"f.I'iV~.ﬁE.11€5 eoritentions oi' the petitioners. Howevei", in this'p«sif*t:.i_€§u};if' _ ease, the fact remains that the bank has I}10'v*€(i.:'t.hé'~.:Df.s1£'itE1" » Magistrate and has obtained an order for poiiee .;ji'oi':eiei;isongt=:} take over possession of the prope1'ties. "Vt'hi's" Court 1;iiif£1f3 Of V L. preiimiriary" hearing has gratnteti'Vi'i'i:if1tetim the parties to maintaiii Sﬁmiortgie 1, is not extended to eriabie the the Appeilate Tribunal and see}-{i'ieeZess2i=Ai"y the petitioners to serious har5fish,i;'1iiiaﬁﬁi-.prejiidiee..,,rTh.erefore, in my considered view, thisﬂis 21 'fit e'as:'e--,_to .seX'teiici the interim order directing the parties to mairifgairi statusqii_o with regard to the possession of _ the petitionit isehed'uieV:piop:r:1*ty, for a period of four weeks. '.'r'=.t Le2ifi2.ed..CQtir}seI. for the petitioners has placed reliance ._ on t.}1Ae'j'udgr_nevi5;1;of the Apex Court in. the ease of M/S. SARDAR .;1;s_soom"zes;_ & 0123 vs. PUNJAB & SINDH BANK & ons. -- AIR ISQ 218. to eonterid that the gu.ide}i.nes issued by the 'ﬁiesegve Bank of India regarding One Time Settlemerit, scheme it be eiiforcted in terms of the provis.i.ons of 2002 Act. it is not f1€C€fSSE1I.'V to examine this aspect of the matter as it is Very eiear WP 4491} 93 /20 .1. E that the pet'.iiii0r1ers have Elakezz up 2: eor1teni,ior1 beifere the Tribuxxal {hat their plea ibr One Time Seitieziient »rj:d:ifoee'{i C()}}.SiCif;'1'E";'d. 11 is open "£40 t.I'1ei11 to "urge this groundwgis in 'the ' appeal; to be filed.

8. Reserving liberty to file-a_1"1 appeal Debit» Recovery Appellate Tribunal. }')€'L'i"'IiO:IV1. €fiismissed.. The interim: order direet.i.:Ai;,§f*,I"1e--'_Vpa;I,i'e$_ﬁe'"maintain si;atus--qu0 is extended for a period of KK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court