Karnataka High Court
Sri D M Krishnappa vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 29 July, 2015
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.30902 OF 2015(GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
SRI D.M.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE SRI MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
PROP. M/S.KALIKADEVI KALYANAMANTAPA
& BHOJANASHALA,
SY.NO.145 AND 146,
CHIKKAJALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 562 157. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIDDANOORU VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
SITE NO.1053, OPP. TO SBT FACTORY,
BB ROAD, NEAR YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.MOHAMED IBRAHIM, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL ON 28.1.2015 IN S.A.NO.469/2013 WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL MEASURES TAKEN UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 BY HOLDING THE SAME AS
ILLEGAL.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent has entered caveat.
2. The petitioner is before this court assailing the order dated 28.01.2015 in S.A.469/2013 at Annexure-C to the petition, against the action initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002.
3. The petitioner has filed an appeal in S.A. No.469/2013 as contemplated under Section-17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. During the pendency of the petition, after nearly two years from the date of filing of the said appeal, the appeal was disposed off on 28.01.2015, providing two months time from the said date to enable the petitioner to settle the loan with the respondent-bank. Since the order had not been complied 3 the respondent-bank proceeded with the further action in the matter.
4. At that stage, the petitioner once again filed an appeal in S.A.238/2015. The Tribunal while entertaining the same, had passed an interim order making the stay conditional subject to the deposit of the amount. Since the said order has not been complied, the Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal also.
5. The petitioner is now before this court only assailing the order passed in S.A. No.469/2013. Though the order in S.A. No.238/2015, is not assailed, the very sequence as noticed would indicate that when the matter was pending before the DRT, the petitioner had undertaken to settle the respondent-bank by paying the 4 amount. Though a conditional interim order has been granted, the condition had not been satisfied. Hence, while taking note of the said situation, this Court would not be in a position to interfere with such an order passed by the Tribunal while take note of it in a writ proceeding.
6. However, taking note of the fact that the subsequent appeal in S.A.238/2015, was dismissed for non-compliance of the interim order, even at this stage it would be open for the petitioner to comply with the interim order as made by the Tribunal, before any further action is taken by the respondent. If such deposit is made, the petitioner would have to liberty to file an application before the Tribunal seeking restoration of the appeal, in view of compliance of the conditional order. 5
7. With the said liberty alone to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed off.
SD/-
JUDGE JJ