Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Bank Ltd vs M/S Meridian Exports Pvt Ltd on 10 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT APPEAL NO.116 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,
ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
FIRST FLOOR, FKCCI BUILDING,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
MR RAJARAM P N
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.S.NAGANAND, SR.ADV. FOR
SMT.SUMANA NAGANAD, ADV.)
AND:
1. M/S MERIDIAN EXPORTS PVT LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
NO.31, OPP MICO BOSH FACTORY,
GATE NO.2, MARBLE MARKET,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560030
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS
MR S.KISHORE AND MRS SRILAKSHMI KISHORE
2. MR S KISHORE
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O SRI S.SATHYANARAYANA
-2-
3. MRS SRILAKSHMI KISHORE
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O SRI S.KISHORE,
NO.504, 6TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
S.T.ROAD, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560034.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.A.RAJENDRA, ADV. FOR C/R1)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.1102/2022 (GM-RES)
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1102/2022, whereby the writ petition has been disposed of with a direction to the appellant/respondent to act upon One Time Settlement (OTS) and the offer of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy lakhs) by the respondents/petitioners in the form of first installment under OTS shall be accepted by the Bank and that subject property shall be given back to the possession of the -3- petitioners only on such payment being made. It was also directed that the respondents/petitioners shall pay the remainder of the money i.e., Rs.2,05,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore & Five lakhs) on or before 25.03.2022, failing which, the Bank can take back the possession of the property by using Police force.
3. It was the case of the respondents/petitioners before the writ Court that SARFAESI proceedings were coercively initiated by the appellant/Bank for recovery of the amount due and the Bank has extended OTS facility under which the respondents/petitioners have to pay Rs.70,00,00/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs) on or before 09.02.2022 and the remainder i.e., Rs.2,05,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore & Five Lakhs) on or before 25.03.2022. It was argued by the respondents/petitioners before the writ Court that the period may be extended by six months for the payment of remaining amount as the OTS proposal has been accepted.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the order passed by the writ Court is wrong and illegal as the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Division -4- Bench of this Court in the case of The Authorised Officer, Karnataka Bank vs. Rajeshwari B Shetty and others vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2021 in W.A.No.1305/2021. It has been submitted that the Division Bench has held that the writ petition in such given circumstances where the petitioner has approached the Court after initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is not maintainable. The facts of the present case are identical to the one cited supra. It is also submitted that vide judgment and order dated 08.12.2021 passed in W.A.No.1235/2021 [Kotak Mahindra Bank vs. Gopal Kamath and Co. and others], it has been categorically held that it was incumbent upon the respondents/petitioners to have moved appropriate application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on the grounds based on the benefits applicable to them as per the Credit Guarantee Scheme. It was for the DRT to have considered the said application and pass appropriate orders. The respondents/petitioners on their own could not have presumed that the relief claimed before the writ Court could not have been granted by the DRT and therefore, filed the said writ petition. It has been held the -5- writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that it has been the consistent view of the Apex Court that High Courts should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well-defined exceptions. It has also been held consistently that High Courts shall not interfere in matters which are cognizable by DRT or DRAT.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand tries to submit that there is violation of the principles of natural justice as the appellant/Bank has arbitrarily declared the Bank Account of the respondents/petitioners as Non Performing Assets (NPA) and had taken coercive measures under SARFAESI Act to recover the alleged standing amount.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. -6-
8. We are of the considered view that the issues involved in the present appeal are squarely covered by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases The Authorised Officer, Karnataka Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank (supra).
9. As such, we are of the considered view that the writ petition in the given facts and circumstances was not maintainable.
10. In view of the above, the writ appeal is disposed of. The order impugned is set aside. Writ petition is dismissed. However, with a liberty to the respondents/petitioners to avail the statutory alternative remedy before the appropriate forum as provided under SARFAESI Act.
The pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE VM