Karnataka High Court
M/S. Hdb Financial Services Ltd vs M/S. Renown Hotels And Resorts Pvt Ltd on 16 September, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.8181 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,
NO.1481, 1ST FLOOR,
SRI. SAI AMRUTHAM,
28TH MAIN, SOUTH END B CROSS,
9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 069.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
SRI. NAGARAJ RAO
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S RENOWN HOTELS & RESORTS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN
COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.304, 306, GOLD TOWERS,
NO.50, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. MAHESH TAYAL
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAVEEN G.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTIN OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
23.03.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL
-2-
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN OS.NO.3601/2018 AND
THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND
PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO FILE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND TO
PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS
INCLUDING CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 07.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the
order dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure-A) passed in
O.S.No.3601/2018 on the file of the Principal City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short, 'the trial Court').
The Petitioner herein is the Defendant and The Respondent
herein is the Plaintiff before the Trial Court.
2. The Brief Facts are as follows:
The petitioner herein is a Non-banking Financial Institution
with its registered office at Mumbai, Maharastra and a branch in
-3-
Bangalore, inter alia carrying on its banking business represented
by its Authorized Officer. The petitioner is a company registered
under the Companies Act, 1956, involved mainly in business of
Hotel Industry and Resort Development Projects.
The Respondent herein approached the Petitioner for
financial assistance of a sum of Rs. 5 Crores for preclosure of
loans from the State Bank of India. After verifying the credentials
a loan amount of Rs. 3 Crores were sanctioned by the Petitioner,
where Respondent had availed a loan of Rs. 3 Crores of loan
under loan account no. 202419 on 31.12.2011 to meet the
working capital requirements, agreeing to repay the said loan
amount in 36 equated monthly instalments along with interest at
the rate of 14% per annum. Additionally, respondent has also
availed the loan of Rs. 20 Lakhs under loan account no. 202428
on 31.12.2011 agreeing to repay the said loan amount in 36
equated monthly instalments along with interest at the rate of
17% per annum.
As per the Loan Agreement, the prepayment is allowed only
after 6 months from the date of disbursement of loans and for
-4-
the prepayments, respondent was liable to pay pre-payment
charges, between 6-12 months which is 6% of principal
outstanding plus service tax/surcharge, between 12-18 months is
5% of principal outstanding plus service tax/surcharge and after
36 months is 2% of principal outstanding plus service
tax/surcharge.
The Respondent, accordingly, after paying the prepayment
charges and closure of loans as required under the agreement,
sought the refund of pre-closure charges levied by the petitioner
amounting to Rs.9,03,246.16/- through an email dated
22.05.2012 which according to Petitioner is non-refundable.
Subsequently, the Respondent preferred a complaint before the
Banking Ombudsman and sought for its intervention seeking the
refund of the pre closure charges. The Banking Ombudsman then
directed the Respondent to raise the complaint to the General
Manager, Reserve bank of India as the petitioner is not covered
under clause 3(5) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006.
Once, the petitioner denied the refund of the Pre-payment
charges, the respondent has filed an O.S. No. 3601/2018 on
-5-
28.04.2018. before the court below seeking for a relief of refund
of Rs. 9.03,246.61/- being the foreclosure charges paid by the
Respondent.
On 06.02.2020, the petitioner advocate filed written
Statement along with I.A. No.2 for condonation of delay in filing
the written statement and acceptance of written statement. The
Court below on 23.03.2021, dismissed the application for
condonation of delay and the written statement was not taken on
record by contending that though an opportunity was granted to
the petitioner, petitioner failed to file the written statement on
05.10.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this
court.
3. Heard counsels for both the sides.
4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that the trial court has failed to observe the fact that the
procedure is handmade of justice and technical rules are not to
be applied to defeat the justice. It was also contended that court
-6-
failed to consider whether summons were duly served to the
petitioner as required under Order V of C.P.C.
5. It was further contended that the trial court has failed to
consider that the matter relates to bank and whether the
petitioner has acted in terms of the agreement or not and trail
court ought to have also gone into the contents and reasons
assigned in the application.
6. It was contended that the trial court ought to have given
an opportunity of being heard, the petitioner being the financial
institution.
7. In view of the above circumstances, it is relevant to rely
upon the following Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court:
• Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi, (2005) 6 SCC 705 :
2005 SCC OnLine SC 1195 at page 708
• Zolba v. Keshao, (2008) 11 SCC 769 : 2008 SCC
OnLine SC 601 at page 773
• Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co.,
(2018) 6 SCC 639 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 777 : 2018
SCC OnLine SC 499 at page 646
• Sailendra Kumar Sisodia vs Rani Sisodiya & Ors
2024 SCC Online SC 4043
-7-
8. In view of the above Judgments, it appears that Order
VIII Rule 1 of CPC, provision does not deal with the power of the
Court and also does not specifically take away the power of the
Court to take the written statement on record though filed
beyond time as provided for and also to curb the mischief of
unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the
disposal of cases causing inconvenience to plaintiffs and
petitioners approaching the Court for quick relief and also to the
serious inconvenience of the Court faced with frequent prayers
for adjournment. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC or any
procedural enactment should not be construed in any manner,
which would leave the Court helpless to meet extra-ordinary
situations in the ends of justice.
9. This provision has came up for interpretation in a number
of cases and the same was observed by the Apex Court time and
again that no doubt, the words "shall not be later than 90 days"
do not take away the power of the Court to accept written
statement beyond the time and it is also held that the nature of
-8-
the provision is procedural and it is not a part of substantial law
and further expressed that there is no restriction in Order VIII
Rule 1 of CPC that after expiry of the 90 days, further time
cannot be granted. The Court has wide power to make such
order in relation to the suit. The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of
CPC providing for upper limit of 90 days to file written statement
is directory not mandatory.
10. In view of the above reasons, this Court has opined that
in the present case, the respondents have received summons
and filed vakalath on 14.08.2018 thereafter the matter is posted
on 05.09.2018 and thereafter the matter is adjourned to
05.10.2018 for filing written statement. On that day the
defendants were called absent as unrepresented hence written
statement of defendants is taken "as not filed" and Defendant
filed I.A. No. 2 under section 151 of CPC on 06.02.2020 for
condonation of delay to permit filing of written statement and the
same was rejected on 23.03.2021 stating that as per the
limitation Act, limitation to file written statement in 90 days on
condonation which cannot be condoned after the limitation
-9-
prescribed. It appears that the petitioner filed the I.A.No.2 with a
delay of 490 days (05.10.2018 to 06.02.2020) in filing the
written statement i.e., after 90 days. It appears that the
defendants are adopted any dilatory tactics and caused serious
inconvenience to the Court, admittedly there is a delay in filing
the written statement but the status of the main case is posted
for further chief of P.W.1, it appears that there is no progress in
the suit proceedings while considering the statement of
defendants is taken as "not filed" i.e., on 05.10.2018.
11. It is observed that, there is no hardship and serious
inconvenience caused to the Court proceedings. In view of the
above observations, the impugned Order dated 23.03.2021 in
I.A.No.2 is hereby set aside and directed the trial Court to
receive the written statement of the Defendants.
12. With the above discussions, this court intend to set
aside the impugned order with the following directions :
a) The Writ Petition is allowed on payment of
cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) before the
- 10 -
trial Court for causing delay in filing written
statement.
The petitioner has to deposit the cost of
Rs.10,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date
of receipt of the order before the Principal City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, failing which the
order shall stand dismissed automatically.
c) On compliance of the order, the trial court is
directed to receive the written statement and the trial
court is directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously
as possible, i.e., within eight months from the date of
the receipt of this order.
d) Both parties are directed to co-operate with
the trial court in disposal of the main suit.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
bnv
CT: UR
- 11 -
Dr.KMRJ:
16.09.2025
ORDER
On pronouncement of the Order, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and submitted that cost of Rs.10,000/- is deposited as per interim Order dated 24.05.2022.
On perusal of the Ordersheet, it is noticed that cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) is not deposited with the Registry.
Therefore, petitioner is directed to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) with the trial Court as Ordered in the main petition.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv