Karnataka High Court
Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt Ltd vs Yes Bank Limited on 20 April, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.5866/2022 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1. OZONE URBANA INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE
NO.38, ULSOOR ROAD
BANGALORE- 560 042
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. OZONE INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE
2ND FLOOR, NO.35/1
YELLAPPA CHETTY LAYOUT
CIVIL STATION, ULSOOR ROAD
BANGALORE- 560042
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
3. MR. VASUDEVAN SATHYAMOORTHY
S/O MR. SATHYAMOORTHY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.32, NORRIS ROAD
RICHMOND TOWN
BANGALORE 560025.
4. VIVAAN PROPERTIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE
2ND FLOOR, NO.35/1
YELLAPPA CHETTY LAYOUT
CIVIL STATION, ULSOOR ROAD
BANGALORE -560042
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
5. OZONE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, NO.35/1
YELLAPPA CHETTY LAYOUT
CIVIL STATION, ULSOOR ROAD
2
BANGALORE- 560042
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
6. OZONE PROPEX PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE
NO.38, ULSOOR ROAD
BANGALORE 560042
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
7. OZONE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
NEW NO.63, GN CHETTY ROAD
T NAGAR, CHENNAI-600017
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
8. ITALIX LIVING SPACES PVT. LTD.,
NO.38, ULSOOR ROAD
BANGALORE- 560042
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
9. OZONE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
NEW NO.63, GN CHETTY ROAD
T. NAGAR, CHENNAI- 600017
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SWAROOP ANAND R, ADV.)
AND:
1. YES BANK LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE
YES BANK HOUSE
OFF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY
SANTACRUZ (EAST)
MUMBAI- 400 055
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE- 560001
REPD. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
3. VISTA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED
IL AND FC FINANCIAL CENTER
PLOT NO.C22 G BLOCK
3
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX
BANDRA (EAST)
MUMBAI -400005
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
4. IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LIMITED
ASIAN BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR
70, R KAMANI MARK
BALLARD ESTATE
MUMBAI- 400001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF DRT BANGALORE IN OA 1428/2021 ON
IA 3028/2021 DATED 30.12.2021 VIDE ANNX-K AND QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DRT BANGALORE IN OA 1428/2021
ON IA 3059/2021 DATED 30.12.2021 VIDE ANNX-L.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the interim order (Annexure-K) dated 30.12.2021 passed on I.A.No.3028/2021 in O.A.No.1428/2021 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Karnataka at Bengaluru.
2. Heard Sri Swaroop Anand.R, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the writ petition papers. 4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that classifying the petitioners as NPA and as Doubtful- I is not in accordance with the guidelines of the 2nd respondent-Reserve Bank of India. Further he submits that the 1st respondent-YES Bank Limited classified the petitioner as NPA with retrospective effect, which is also not permissible under the guidelines of the 2nd respondent-RBI. It is submitted that while the proposal for settlement was pending with the 1st respondent-YES Bank, without taking any decision the 1st respondent- YES Bank approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II for recovery of a sum of Rs.1261,60,44,391/- with interest. Under the impugned exparte interim order the Tribunal directed the 3rd petitioner not to leave the country without prior permission of the Tribunal in I.A.No.3059/2021. Further on I.A.No.3028/2021, the Tribunal restrained the petitioners from transferring or charging the attachment schedule property by way of sale, gift, assignment or otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have filed 5 application for vacating the interim order, which is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II.
4. The impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II is exparte interim order. Petitioners have already filed application for vacating the interim order. When the petitioners have already filed an application for vacating the interim order before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, it is for the petitioners to pursue the application. If any order is passed adverse to the petitioners' interest, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the same before the appropriate authority. It is not open for the petitioners to pursue parallel proceedings on the same cause of action.
5. Moreover, the provisions of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, provides alternate remedy to the petitioners for recovery of debts due to the Banks. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. VISHWA BHARATHI VIDYA MANDIR AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 6 SC 44 has made it clear that wherever the Act/Statute provides alternate remedy, this Court refrains from entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paragraphs reads as follows :-
"33. In the case of City and Industrial Development Corpn. Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168, it was observed by this Court in paragraph 30 that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether ...............(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute.
34. In the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Ors. (supra) after referring to the earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (2003) 3 SCC 524; Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 and State Bank of India Vs. Allied Chemical Laboratories, (2006) 9 SCC 252 while upholding the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition on 7 the ground that an efficacious remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, it was observed that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person.
35. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in subsequent decisions in the case of General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited & Anr. (supra) as well as in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited (supra)."
6. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is disposed of. All contentions of the petitioners are left open.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG* CT:bms