Karnataka High Court
M/S S B Valves India Pvt Ltd vs The Canara Bank on 12 July, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:27080
WP No. 13267 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 13267 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
M/S S B VALVES INDIA PVT LTD
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
PLOT NO. 120B, IIND PHASE,
TARIHAL INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TARIHAL
HUBLI - 580 026.
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. B BASAVARAJ,
S/O LATE SRI. NARAYANAPPA SARANGI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M A RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CANARA BANK
TRAFFIC ISLAND BRANCH,
COURT CIRCLE
Digitally signed HUBLI - 580 029.
by Vandana S DHARWAD DISTRICT,
Location: HIGH KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND
AUTHORIZED OFFICER
2. M/S SHALIMAR VALVES PVT LTD.,
PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
(AUCTION PURCHASER)
NO.4/846/1, MIDC INDUSTRIAL AREA
RABALE, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 701.
MAHARASTRA STATE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:27080
WP No. 13267 of 2024
SRI. Y GURURAJ
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON 12.02.2014 IN I.A.NO.1658/2013 AND
S.A.NO..227/2013 BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, AT BENGALURU
(ANNEXURE-A AND C) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash/Set aside the impugned order passed on 12.02.2014 in I.A.No.1658/2013 and S.A.No.227/2013 by the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, at Bengaluru (Annexure-'A' and 'C'). Since the Application filed U/s. 17 of SARFAESI Act is dismissed without appreciating question of law, that too without passing any detail order in accordance with law.
(b) Grant such other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstance on question of law, as stated supra and in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the long, inordinate and unexplained delay and latches of more than 10 years from the date of the impugned order, which was passed on -3- NC: 2024:KHC:27080 WP No. 13267 of 2024 12.02.2014 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal - I, Bengaluru and also the availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal before the DRAT, Chennai under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act'), without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law, including filing an appropriate appeal before the appropriate Court / Forum / Tribunal subject to all just exceptions. In the event, the petitioner takes recourse to such remedies as available in law as stated supra, the respondents would be entitled to contest the said proceedings and all defences available to the respondents including maintainability, limitation, etc., are kept open.
4. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17