Karnataka High Court
Sri R V Nathan vs Indian Bank on 19 November, 2015
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NO.56672 OF 2013 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN :
SRI.R.V.NATHAN
S/O LATE V.RAJARAMAN
AGE: 70 YEARS
R/A 205, RAMLAKSHMAN APARTMENT
NO.89 DIAGONAL ROAD, V.V.PURAM
BANGALORE - 560 004 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.V.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. INDIAN BANK
NO.110, M.G.ROAD
UNITED MANSION
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT
GENERAL MANAGER AND THE
AUTHORISED MANAGER
2. M/s. VAIKUND PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT (P) LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.205
RAMLAKSHMAN APARTMENT
2
NO.89 DIAGONAL ROAD, V.V.PURAM
BANGALORE - 560 004 .. RESPONDENTS
(SRI.A.KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order produced
at Annexure-AK passed by the DRAT Chennai dated 26.11.2013
in RA(SA).99/11, modifying the interim order dated 16.6.11 on
IA No.1479/2010 in RA(SA) 99/2011, and etc.
This petition coming on for this day, THE ACTING CHIEF
JUSTICE made the following:
ORDER
This is a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated December 10, 2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in R.A.(SA) 99 of 2011.
2. The writ petitioner was the borrower. The Bank initiated a proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act') and issued sale notices on January 28, 2010 and February 1, 2010. Unfortunately, for the Bank the sale could not take place.
3
3. The writ petitioner challenged the sale notices before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. The Debt Recovery Tribunal passed an order against the borrower and being aggrieved, the borrower preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
4. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, it was stated by the learned advocate for the Bank that sales could not be taken place in terms of the aforesaid notices and, thus, the challenge to sale notices became infructuous.
5. In the meantime, the Bank issued another sale notice on November 12, 2010. The petitioner - borrower challenged that notice in the writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.No.39830 of 2010.
The Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, by judgment and order dated February 4, 2011, dismissed the writ petition granting liberty to the writ petitioners to agitate their grievance before appropriate forum.
4
6. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal held that the appeal against an order challenging the sale notices dated January 28, 2010 and February 1, 2010, did not survive for consideration, when no sale could take place. Liberty was granted to the authorized officer to take fresh action in accordance with law. Liberty was, simultaneously, granted to the borrower to challenge such action in accordance with law.
7. Mr.Keshava Bhat, learned advocate appearing for the Bank submits that pursuant to the sale notice dated November 12, 2010, the sale took place on December 20, 2010 and sale has been confirmed and purchaser has paid the entire consideration amount and the authorities, of course, are yet to handover possession to the purchaser.
8. We, therefore, find that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal did not commit any error of jurisdiction requiring interference.
5
We also opine that it is open for the writ petitioner to approach the competent forum challenging the sale notices and the sale, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, IA No.1 of 2015 does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RV