Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ms Narayanadri Rice Industries Kampli vs The Deputy Commissioner on 19 April, 2023

Author: R.Devdas

Bench: R.Devdas

                                                             -1-
                                                                          WA No. 100254 of 2023




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                                         PRESENT
                                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
                                                             AND
                                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                                        WRIT APPEAL NO. 100254/2023 (GM-RES)
                           BETWEEN:

                                  M/S NARAYANADRI RICE INDUSTRIES,
                                  KAMPLI-58, TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BALLARI,
                                  REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.

                           1.     SHRI G. KEDRESHWAR RAO,S/O LATE G. SUBBA RAYUDU,
                                  AGE :56 YEARS, OCC: PARTNER, NARAYANADRI RICE
                                  INDUSTRIES, R/O NELLUDI KOTTAL, KAMPLI-583113,
                                  TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BALLARI.

                           2.   SMT.G.VIJAYALAXMI W/O G. KEDARESHWAR RAO,
                                AGE : 48 YEARS, OCC.: PARTNER, NARAYANADRI RICE
                                INDUSTRIES, R/O NELLUDI KOTTAL, KAMPLI-583113,
                                TQ. KAMPLI, DIST BALLARI.
                                                                          -    APPELLANTS
                           (BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

          Digitally
          signed by
          VINAYAKA B V
                           AND:
VINAYAKA Location:
BV       DHARWAD
          Date:
          2023.04.20
          16:54:03 -0700

                           1.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                                  BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583 101,
                                  TQ/DIST : BALLARI.

                           2.     THE TAHASILDAR,
                                  KAMPLI TALUKA, KAMPLI-583113,
                                  TQ. KAMPLI, DIST: BALLARI.

                           3.   CANARA BANK, GANGAVATHI BRANCH,
                                1ST FLOOR, L.G. ROAD, GANGAVATHI-583227,
                                TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST KOPPAL REPRESENTED BY
                                CHIEF MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
                                                                         - RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2,
                           SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
                                 -2-
                                          WA No. 100254 of 2023




      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT, 1961, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2023 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.105280/2022 (GM-RES) & ETC.

      THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

This intra Court appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner calling in question the impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 105280/2022 disposing of the writ petition while noticing that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the writ petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act').

2. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to draw the attention of this Court to an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.11.2022 permitting the writ petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs on or before 28.11.2022 and to deposit a further sum of Rs.40 lakhs on or before 28.12.2022, subject to which the interim order of stay was granted. Further, on 15.12.2022, at the request of the writ petitioners, time to deposit the second installment was extended till 28.02.2023. However, -3- WA No. 100254 of 2023 even before expiry of the said date, the writ petition itself was disposed of on 01.02.2022. Learned counsel would further submit that in terms of the interim direction issued by the learned single Judge, the writ petitioners further deposited a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs on 27.02.2023 on an assurance said to have been given by the respondent-bank to restore the possession of the Rice Mill and to enable the writ petitioners to carry on their business.

3. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the decision of the learned Single Judge in declining to entertain the writ petition is based on not only the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, but also several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein directions were issued to all the High Courts in the Country to be guarded in entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of matters falling under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

4. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. However, taking note of the fact that the writ petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 55 lakhs in terms of the interim directions -4- WA No. 100254 of 2023 given by the learned Single Judge, we deem it appropriate to request the Debt Recovery Tribunal that if the appellants herein approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal seeking relief against the respondent-Bank which is proceeding to take possession of the secured assets, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall take note of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, take note of the fact that substantial amount has been deposited by the appellants with the respondent-Bank consequent to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Appropriate relief which is permissible in law may be granted to the appellants, if the appellants approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

In view of disposal of the appeal on merits, pending IAs also stand disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE BVV / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5