Dismissed

Smt Sudha S v. The Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank Limited

DRT9 Oct 2024SA/72/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an Interlocutory Application seeking to condone a 153-day delay in filing a Securitisation Application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. It held that the Tribunal lacks power to condone delay for original jurisdiction applications and no application under Section 17(1) was valid.

What did the court decide?

IA 296/2024 and SA 72/2024 were dismissed; IA Nos. 266/2024, 827/2024, 828/2024, 1915/2024, 1928/2024, and 1958/2024 were closed.

Smt Sudha S versus The Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

09.10.2024

¶2

lA 296/2024 and consequently SA 72D024 are dismissed as pe! separate order passed today. IA Nos.266D024, 821/2024, 82812024, 1915/2024, 1928/2024 and 195812024 arc closed. IA 212412024 is dismissed as per separate order passed today, with the liberty graflted to the petitione/applicant or her tenants as detailed therein.

¶3

\ Presiiling Officer

¶4

¶5

IN TI"IE DEB'I'S RECOVERY TRIBT'NAL^{- 1, KARNATAKA} AT BENGALURU

¶6

PRESENT: SRI IM1IAZ ALI

¶7

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶8

Dated the 09rh day ofoctober, 2024

¶9

IN'TERLOCUTORY APPLICATION^{NO.29 6 12024} IN

¶10

SECURITISATION APPLICATION^{NO.72 OF 2024}

¶11

Betweefl

¶12

Sudha S. Wo Thimme Gowda, 814, 4'h Main, Behind Aanjaneya Temple, Gangondana Halli, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560039.

¶13

Petitioner/Applicant

¶14

And

¶15

L The Bangalore City Coopcrative^BankLimited, 3. 1" Floor. Pampamahakavi^{Road.Chamaraipet,} Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560018,^{having its branch} at 7E, 14th Main Road, Vijayanagar,^Bangalore, Kamataka - 560040, represented by^{its Branch Manager.}

¶16

The authorised officer, The Bangalore City Cooperative^BankLimited, 3, l'r Floor, Pampamahakavi^{Road,Chamarajpet,} Bengaluru, Kamataka - 560018,^{representedby} its authorised officer. .... .... .. Respondents/Defendants

¶17

ThisInterlocutoIyApplicationhavingbeenheardon04.10.2024inthepresence

¶18

of Advocates M/s Hegde^{PrakashR, Ramachandra and GaneshS Hegde forthe} petitioner/applicant, and Advocates^{M/sK V Lokesh, Sreevidya C U and Hemavathi P} for the respondents/defendants,^{andstood overto this daylor consideralion, the Tribunal} delivered the following:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner filed Interlocutory^{Application (lA)29612024on 07 O2'2024:ur,:'d'er} ' S.5 ofthe Limitation^{Act, 1963r/wS.22(2)(h)ofthe RecoveryofDebtsandBankruptcy}

¶21

lA No.296 of202,r in SA 72l202'r

¶22

Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) - for short 'the RDB Act' - praying to condone the delay of2l days in filing Secudtisation Application (SA) No.72l2024 under S.l7(l) ofthe Securitisation and Reconstruction ofFioancial Assets and Enforcement ofSecu ty Ilterest Act, 2002 as amended from time to time hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioner is none other than the applicant in the SA.

¶23

The case set out in the notary attested affidavit accompanying the IA in brief is as follows:- After coming to know about the application dated 19.07.2023 under S.l4 of the Act got filed by the defendant bank in Crl Misc No.572?/2023 before the Hon'ble Court of the VIII ACMM, Bengaluu seeking an order to take the actual possession of the schedule A property, in pursuance of the alleged possession notice dated 19.12.2022 and being aggrieved by the same, this peririoner got approached the Hon'ble High Cout of Kamaraka at Bengaturu h Wp No.2522212023 on 03. .2023. After having the information about the subsequent sale Dotice dated 28.11.2023 issued by the 2nd defendant and being aggrieved by the same, this petitioner got approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru again in Wp No.269.:,312023 on 01.12.2023. The albresaid W t Petitions were dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, this petitioner filed the SA on 02.02,2024 believing rhat the same stands within time. Considering the aforesaid sale notice dated 28.1 1.202j issued in respect of the schedule immovable property there is a delay of2l days in filing the atbresaid SA and hence rhe IA.

¶24

The respondents/defendants filed a statement objection on 05.09.2024 contending as below:- The application is premature. S.l4 application was linally allowed and physical possession of the schedule immovable property was already taken. On the above contentions, the respondents/defendants prayed for dismissal ofthe SA with costs.

¶25

The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner/ applicant is entitled to the reliefprayed for?

¶26

¶27

¶28

L No 296 ot202,r i^{S.^7212021}

¶29

The Point:- Aggrieved by the application^{(CrlMisc No 572712023) dated} 19.07.2023 filed by the^{iesponderts/defendantsas againstthe petitioner/applicantin} respect of the schcdule^{immovablepropertiesbelore the 8rh AdditionalChief} Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore,^{shefiled the SAon 02.02.2024 under5.17(1)of} the Act before the Tribunal.^The Petitioner/applicant^{is none other than thebonowerto} financial assistances in the form of^{two home loans of {43 lakhs and t200 lakhs availed} from the I't respondent/I" defendant^{cooperativebank.As per the strictureunderS.17(l} ) of the Act, an application^{challengingCtl Misc 572'112023dated 19 07.2023 oughtto} have been filed before this^{Tribunalon or beforc02.09.2023 but thesame was happened} to be filed only on 02.02.2024^{with a delay of 153days.}

¶30

The petitioner/applicant in^{paragraph4 of thc SA under the head} 'limitation'^{haspleaded thatthe applicationhas beenfiled withinthe periodof limitation.}

¶31

The relevant averments^{rgadas below:-}

¶32

"The applicant dectarcs that this apPlication isfled rrellwithin^the tinitation^{prescrihedin su|} section (l) afs.t7 of^the Act^{as theapplicant is apprcaching thcHan'bleTrib nal vith this SA being} aggrieved by the inpugned^{easures takenby the delendant bank bv\ravaffling the applicationunlet} slfu o7 e ,tcr daied^{t9.07.2023 helare the HonbleCourt aj the8't' AC\IM'Be} Ealult^{in ctl Misc} No.5727/2023 seeking an o^{er ta tak€lheacnol} Possession^{of the schedulc /1} PtuPetl^andbeing ag;rieved by^{the subiequentsatenatice dated28.tt.2023 ittued bv the2^1 (lefendantanangstruch othet} iir' ,i* n^{p*"i"nce af thealle1edpassess ion notice datettIs.t 2.2022issredblthe 2delendant} in respect ofwhici^the applico^{t hus gotapPtuached theHoible HighCLlurtofKarnatakd at Eengalutu} respectiret; ign^Lt'P No)322/2023^{dnd WP No.26973/202tto withdtMthe saneon 01.022024 enablins} to this SA-

¶33

On scrutiny, the^{Registry vide remarksdated 03.02.2024 noteda few} defects inclurling limitation.^{Thereafterthe petitioner/applicantfilcd IA 29612024ott} 07.02,2024 praying 1br^{condoning the delayof 2l days in filing the SA Ld counselfor} the^{petitioner/applicant hled a memo on 07.02,2024 requestingto post the casefo!} hearing on 09.02.2024.^{The memoreads asbelo\ry:-}

¶34

"(Jndenigned aA'acate uppeotingfor appetlant in^{the abovenattet thauppellant} Pruls^{that the} Hon'ble Tribunallay^{kindDbe pleasetlto postthemattet of the abot'e SA on09'02'2024krheating an} a;missian and i kt;nt opilicatin^{toeetthe eneryence tu the intercstaf iuniu a} 'l^{quff)'as the} i,",""ii,s^{p",ans t"f,ii theHt)nbtettasistrateCaurt refe et in the SA hasbeanponed forPassinsof} the order^{on 09.02.2021-}

¶35

¶36

IA No.296 oi202,1in SA 7212024

¶37

Ou filing of the lA and the memo, the scrutiny hand^reported that^{the defects were} complied with vide remarks dated 08.02.2024. Thereafler,^{the Regislrarvide} order^dated 08.02.2024 ordered to register the SA and^placed thl. matter betbre the^Tribunalon 09.02.2024. The order rcads as belowi-

¶38

"Regittet ds SA. Place beIarc the Hon ble PresidingOfficlr on 09.A1.202.t.

¶39

Time and again it lvas brought to the notice of the Registry in unrpteen occasions ir^a large lumber of decisions irr the^past that mere filing of an IA^would not cure the defect of limitation and the Registry shall not register a main application^{until and tmlessa} favourable order is passed by the Tribunal in the IA for condonation of delay.^When the petitioner/applicant itself has sought for placing the IA belbre the Tribunal for hearing, there was no need for the Registry to register the main application altd^place the same for hearing before the'llribunal. The Registry ofthis Tribunal shall be^guided by the rule of procedure in stricto sensu and not by the memo filed by the petilionery'applicant. A memo filed by the^{petitiorer/applicant} citing urgency^{is not a bar for thesame.No application} filed along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the same shall^beregistered without the leave ofthe Tribunal. The Registry is directed to take^a strict note ofthe^same for future^guidance without any fail.

¶40

Sub-section⁽¹⁾ ofS.l7 ofthe Act deals with the^{righi1o sue ofa person} aggrieved by any of the mcasure taken^{by the secured creditoror hisauthorisedofficer} under sub-section⁽⁴⁾ of S.l3 ofthe Act^{andit reads thus:-}

¶41

''Anr person (inctutling batove| aqsriewd by any oI the nedsttre! refcftd to in sub-sectian⁽¹⁾ afS.t3 tuken b! lhe secutedqeditor^{orhis altthorise.lollicernderthb Chuptet nta\ nakeanaPplicotion} atang \tith s chfee,^{us naybe presoibed,to the DebtsRecowry Tib nal hatinEjvisli.tionil lhendttet}

¶42

within Ioty-fye dals fron the dote^ok|hich such e$urc^{hadbeentakcn."}

¶43

Sub-section (4) ofS.13 ofthe Act deals^{with therecoursescouldbe taken} by the secured credilor in case the borower^{fails to dischargehis liabilityin fullwithin} the specified period in the notice^{issued undersub-section (2). andit reads thus:-}

¶44

¶45

IA No.296 of2024 in SA^r2l20?t

¶46

"(1) In case the bortuvetfails to discharye^his liabilityⁱⁿ fult^withinthe Period^{speciliedin sfi-} section^(2), the seculed crcditor^{may take recou6eto one ornorcoftheloUa|in{tneasures to recowt his} secured tlebr, namely: -

¶47

(a) tale possession ofthe secured assets of the boro|er includins the tisht to truLrfu by way of lease, atsignnent or salefot rcalising^{thesecureasset:}

¶48

(b) take ovet the nanagement of the businets ofthe bato|er ihcllding the tigh! to transfel by \tay of leare, assignnent ar salefor reatisins^{thesecwedasset:}

¶49

PROVIDED that the right to transfar b!-^wq, of leose,^{dlsignnent arsaleshallbe e\ercise.l anly} ,thete the substantial patt aJ the business ofthe bo over is held us securit)'It^{the debt}

¶50

PROVIDED FURTHER that wherc the nanagenent al ihole^oJ the b^sine\s or pa of^the business is severable, the tecued creditor sha^take over^{he nanagenrcn!al suchbtlsinessoithe} borrcwer, hich is reldtable b^the secuity^{or the debt.} (c) appoi"t any petson (heteofiet refemd to as the nanueel), to anase he seculcd assets thc possession ofwhich has been taken avet by the secured creditor;

¶51

(d) rcquirc at ary' t itne by notice in^{writing,anype$on} tho^{has acquire.lany of thesecrred} assets from the bortu er^and lron^{whom any noney is de ot matbeconte due to the boftower,to pa:Jthe} secwed creditot, so nuch of^{the noneyas b su/ficientta ptythesecweddebt."}

¶52

A conjoinr reading of Ss. I 3(4) and l7(^I ) of the Act revcals that any^person aggrieved by any ofthe mcasures^{as envisagedunder sub-section(4) of S.13of the Act is} entitled to file an application under S.17(1)^{oftheActbeforea Debls RecoveryTribunal} having^{jurisdiction.} The right to file an^{application bcforea Debts Recovery 'fribunal} accrues only whcn a measure or an action^{under S.ll(4) ol lhe Act is taken by lhe} secued creditor or his authorised officer.^{The word} 'lakerf^{is the pastparticipleof the} word 'take' ofwhich had already^{happened.As per the stipulationgiven under S.17(1) of} the Act the period of 45 days^{have to be commenced fromtlle dateon whichsuch} measure had beeD taken.^'llad been'^{is similarto have been atldhas beer,exceptthal it} identifies action that both begal^{and ended in the past. It isusedin thepastperfectand} past pefect progrcssive tenses. Where, have^{been andhas} been suggcst a pasl poilrl in time that remains open and unfinished,^{had been indicales} something thal is closed and completed. At any rate, the^{lime limit given under S.l7(l)} ol thc Act is lbrty tive days from the date on which such measure^{had beentaken.}

¶53

¶54

According to the^{petitioner/appliaant,cotNidering the sale notice dated} 28.11.2023 issued in respect^{of A schedule immovable property.there is only a delay of} 21 days in filing the SA.^{It may be noted thatwhat is challengedin SA 7212024 filedon}

¶55

lA No.296 o12024 in SA 72l?02.1

¶56

02.02.2024 before this Tribunal^is the^{application(Crl MiscNo572712023) daled} 19.07.2023 filed by the respondents/defeDdants^{as againstthe pelilioner/applicantin} rcspect of the schedule immovable^{properties betbre the} 8'l'^{AdditionalChief} Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore. The sale notice^{dated 28.11.2023 is a subsequent} measure taken under S.l3(4) of the Act by the^2nd respondelV2"d del'endait^{in respectof} the schedule immovable properties. If the^{petitioner/applicart} is aggrieved by^such measure, it is for her to lile a separate SA under S.l7(l) ofthe^{Actbciore this Tribunal.} The petitioner/applicant cannot rely on a subsequent cause of actioD^{lbt the sole purpose} of limitation. As stated above, there is a delay of 153 days^{in filing the SA beforethis} Tribunal. The factum of Crl Misc No.5727l2023 dated 19.07.202i^{\'as well within the} knowledge of the pctitior)er/applicant. lf she has not challenged the^{same,it is her folly} only. She cannot blame others lbr her own lapses. The^{languageoflheprovision is \er)} clear. In view of the time limit exprcssly^{provided in clearlanguage,the question of} condonation of delay does rot arise thereir. The^{right to sue accrueswithin fo[ty five} days from the date on which measurc had becn taker^{only. lt is essenlillibra party to} have knowledge ofthe action to take^{a remedialmeasurewithinthe time limitprescribed} under the statute. The Act is a special^law enacted^{for enforcement of securityi[terest} over the secured asset tbr^{recoveryof secureddebtAomthc secureddebtorswithout d1e} assistance ofTribunal or Court.^{No leniency in theform ofcondonatiol of delayor date} ofknowledge is shouD thercunder for an^{aggrieved person.}

¶57

¶58

Also. the only provision available^{for condonatior of delay is thatunder} S.5 ofthe Limitation Ac1, 1963. It^{n1aybe noted lhat b) virlueof S 24 of tltc l{DB Act} the provisions of lhe^{LimitationAct,1963are, as far as nrav be.tlrade aPpiicahleto an} application made to a Tribunal.^{The word} 'application'^{as per S.2(b)of the RDB Act} takes in an application made to^{a Tribunalunder S.19 ofthellDBActoDly. Besides, S.5} ofthe Limitation Act. 1963^{is not applicableto filing of an originul suit and if it is not}

¶59

lA N0.296 ol202.l irr SA^721202,1

¶60

filed within the prescribed^period of^{time,it is liablc to be dismissed ifl vicw of the} mandate under S.3 of the Limitation^{Act,1963. The Hon'ble SuprcnrcCoofiin Mardia} Chemicals t.tJ v Union o[ lnJiu frelorted^{in (2001) .l SCC 3l I} I^{has categoricallyheld} that the proceedings under S.l7 ofthe Act is not an^{appellate proceeding,but ratheran} initial actio[ which is brought before^a forum^prescribed uflder^{lhq Act. alrd is |ike a suit} under the Code ofCivif Procedure, 1908. Relying on the decistoi ii ]^{tt|dia Chemicals'} case (supn), the llon'ble Supreme Court in Trqnscorc |^{Uniotl of lndia} {Anr [reported in 000& I SCC 1251 has held thal thc Debts Recovery^{Tribr.rnalacts in an original} jurisdiction under S.17 of the Act. Pusuant thereto, the words 'right to appeal' in the marginal heading of S.l7(l) of the Act was substituted^{by the word} 'Application'^with effect from 01.09.2016 vide SO 2831^{(E) dated 01.09.2016.AIIthe more,the provisoto} S.l7(l) of the Act indicates that the Debts^{RecovcryTribunalunder 5.17(1)of theAct} exercises original^{jurisdiction.} Therefore, it^{maybc notcdthat the provisions of the} Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable^{to an applicationfiled underS 17( l) of theAct.} Moreovcr. vide order datcd 12.07.2023^{in MiscellaneousApplicatiort llt No.l011/2019in} Securitisation Application IR No.3708/2018^{this Tribunalcalegorisally heldthat the} Debts Recovery Tribunal has^{no power to condone thedelayill filing rpplicalionundcr} S.l7 (l) of thc Act, which has become^{absoluteand tinal.Theretbrc,lookirgat any} angle, the delay of 153 days cannot^be condoned^{bythisTribunal.}

¶61

When a stalutory forum is creatcd by larv^{lbl anypersouaggrievedby any} ofthe measures taken by the secured^{creditor or its autho|isedollicerunderS.l3(4) ol the} Act, the petitioner/applicant cannot^{catch at a strawby wayofthcWrit Pelitions resorted} to by her, as an altcrnative^{remedyignoringthestatutor)' dispcusation.as an umbrellafor} the ilordilate delay caused^{by herin approachingthis fribunallbr seekingherrelief.} The remedy under 5.17(1) of the^{Actwas available to theapplicarthad slte beenreally} agg-ieved. If it is not used^{properly at the right time it is hcr folly orly. 'fhcre is no}

¶62

¶63

lA N0.296 of202,l in SA 7llli)2.1

¶64

pleading in the SA as to why the elficacious and direcl statutorv renedy Lnlder S.l7(l ) of the Act was not availed of and the compelling reasons ibr bypassing thc same. The right to sue accrues within forty five days from the date on which n,easurc had been taken only. In the above circumstances, no reliance can be placed upoD the conlention raised by the applicalt that the presert application is filed within the peliod ol limitation as prescribed under S.17(l) ol'the Act or with only a delay of2l days. The Act is a special law enacted for entbrcement of sccurity intcrest over ihc securcd asset ibr recovery of secured debt from the secured debtors without the assislance of Tribunal or Court. No leniency in the lornr ol condonalion ol delay is shown thereunLlcr tbr an aggrieved person. Therefore, the argument ofas advanced by the applicants is rejected.

¶65

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in DDA t Teipal li'eported in⁽²⁰²⁴⁾ 7 SCC glll has held that a party who is insensible to the value ofcivil renredies, and who does not assert his claim with promptitude is denied the ability to eDforce ever an otherwise rightful claim and that every suit or appeal made alier the period of limitation ought to be dismissed, lotwithstandilg whether such ground had been Eised b) d1e opposite side, and it reads thus:-

¶66

"Since the istue in this batch of oppeals cohcerns rhe condonution oJ^,1!luy, it woald be wolhwhile to briel)i allude to the ldw oflinitatioi. The Limitation lct, l96l is a skttute oj reposelounded on considerutions ofpublic^policy and eqediency. The doninant objective ]kletlyifig^the l.M oflinitution is that the title to ptupery, and nlatters oI rights in^general, canbt be kept ilt u state of canstnnt uncertainty, doubt ot suspense. Public interest tequircs that rtnairy slnuld bc prt b lnigation. 1'he Linitarion Act, thus, prcsqibes the specilc points altine fron which the^petiod oJ lt itation lJegins to tun lor^{the institutionofactions.Onqpiryofsuchpetiod, noactioncan be hitiated saveandexceptwhere the} court condones the delalfat a sullicient cduse. A pat<sup>vho is inensible to tte vrhtc^ol ti il runedies, and who does nat assett his clain vith ptu,nptitude is dcnied the abilnr b enfutce er.n u othetnise rightful clain. This^position is rclected in the Latinmaxin,^tiEilontibus et^non do tiutib s.iuo ebteniunt^{i.e the} la\9 aids theigilant and nat those\eha sleep on thcit^tights.

¶67

The Bombot HighCou in Kunudini Ra dasSahtKMMo.ly ptb evasi!?d^{tlte philosaphical} pi arc suppotting the concept af hnnaion:⁽ⁱ⁾ the \ktd of ptoseculian o\ht ttot ta be ltunt:ttq okr dn individual lot an indetertninate petiod:⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ those fio^hsveb€en lethargi rt salesuttd^{lS thcirintcrcsts} should nar expect the lov to co e thei tesae; and^(|ii) a defendanr ought^{not tas} lJar lot^{lost eri.lence} owikg ta the^passage oftiuc

¶68

5.3 ofthe Lnnihtioti.ld^{rejlects this philosaphy.} Evtl^s.rit or ufl)cal^{,rutle ufietthcperiodaf} linitatian aught to be dis"tissell, notwithstantling ||hetlw^such Etuund ltu.l bct rirld b) thc oppotite side. Ho$ete4 this does not nryly that the Linitutbn Act lestrcfs ttu right ,sell: Inncatl, it orl| extinguishes the abilit! to enforce^theright, vitho,t^cither creaths o les!turine^the ""krlrr1g cduse aI action or entiiement itsell:"

¶69

¶70

IA No.296 of202,l in SA^72l202'l

¶71

This Tribunal is required to^{weigh thc explarlations ofieredby the} petitioner/applicant and ihe acceptability^{oflhesarne.lhe delayin lhis case rcflectstlle} i[activity and the iDaction^{on thepart of thc petitioner/applicaltt. The law docsnotpermit} one to sleep arld to seek one's^{relief as andwhen one desires.When parties claimingto} be aggrieved by the measurcs^{takelundcrS.l3(4)of the Acl by thcsecured creditor} approach this Tribunal^{at their ownleisure and pleasure,this TribLr[alwithin the four} comers ofthe Act and^{the Rules madethereunderis under legalobligationrather dutiful} to scrutinise as to whether^{the grievalca at a much belatedstagecouldbq considered or} not. The law does not^{permit a really aggrieved peNon to sleeplndapproacha legal} forum as he desires. n he does^{so it is at his risk andresporrsibililyonly.ln the instant} case, the petitioner/applicant^{has approachcdthis Tribunalrvith a delay of 153days.} which can[ot be appreciated^{bearing in mind the avowedobject of the Act- Indolent} persons cannot expect any il1dulgence and^{interferencefronr anv coufiof la\'ot Tribunal'} The failure on the^{part of thepetitioner/applicantin not shorvilrgduc diligencein filing} the SA at the right tilue^{and the delay taken ill filing the samecan orllybe construed,in} the absence of any^{valid explaration, asgross negligenceand lackof bonafideson her} part. ln the above l'aqts ancl circunrstances^{oflhecase.lhe (ielalof l5i dal-siu filing of} the^pleadings caDnot^{be condoned by this Tribunal as thc suuehls bcenfiled Bell} beyond the^pe od^{oflirnitationas prescribed under S.17(1) ofthc Actl'herefore,Iooking} at any angle, the delay^{of 153 days in filing of SA No.72l2024cannotbc coidonedir any} way.

¶72

In the above^{tacts andcircuDstances of thc case arld in vicw of the} discussion as^{above.the delay of 153 daysin presentingSA No'72/2024cannotbe} condoned and thus the same^{calnotbe entertained by thisTribu[ul lA 296/2024is liable} to be dismissed.^{Sumccil to say thatSA 7212024failsand tltusis liableto tre dismissed'}

¶73

¶74

IA No.296 of2024^{n'S,^7212021}

¶75

1t)

¶76

In the result, IA 29612024^{andconsequentlySA 7?/202'1 are dismissed.IA} Nos.26612024, 827/2024. 82812024,^{\915/2024,192812024.and1958/2024 areclosed.}

¶77

No costs.

¶78

conr rr carrec^,) rnd^prnorandbt N^{t tlk opetr,4,,,,r,^,i* n*} [Dictaretl^{to y l'A die.tlrar tle} .lay oloctabel 202a1 t^{rM[rAz Ar,r} ] PRISIDING OFFICER

¶79

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL . I, KARNATAKA AT BANCALORE

¶80

PRESENTI SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDINC OfFIC]ER

¶81

Dated the 09d,day ofOctober. 2024

¶82

INTERIOCU'I'ORY APPLICAI'ION NO. 29612024 IN SECURITISATION APPI,ICATION NO.72 OF 2024

¶83

Between

¶84

Sudha S. Wo Thimme Cowda. 814.4'h Main, Behind Aanjaneya Temple, Gangondana Halli, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560039.

¶85

........petitioner/Applicant

¶86

And

¶87

¶88

Thc Bangalore City Cooperative Bank Limited, l. Ii l-loor. l)ampamahaka!i Rord. ( harnarcipet. Llengaluru, Kamataka - 560018, having irs branch at 78, l4th Main Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, Kamataka 560040, represented by its Branch Manager and another. ... Respondents/Defendants I

¶89

0ttDEll.

¶90

<br>,,'
g'

¶91

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^{TRIBUNAL- I, KARNATAKA} AT BENGALURU

¶92

PRESENT: Szu IMTIAZ^ALI PRESTDING OFFICER

¶93

Dated the^09th day^{ofOctober, 202'1}

¶94

INTERLOCUTORY^{APPLICA'I'IONNO.2I21D021} IN

¶95

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATION NO.72OF 202{}

¶96

IJetween

¶97

Sudha S. W/o Thimme Gowda, 814,4th Main, Behind Aanjaneya^Templlr, Gangondana lIalli,^Bengaluru, Kamataka 560039.

¶98

........Petitioner/Applicant

¶99

And

¶100

The Bangalore^{City Cooperative Rank Limited'} 3. I't Floor,^{PampamahakaviRoad,Chamarajpet'} Bengaluru, Karnataka -^{560018,having its branch} at 7E. 14ri Main Road'^{viiayanagar, Bargalore'} Karnataka -^{560040,representedby its Branch Manager'}

¶101

The authorised^officer, The Bangalore^{City Cooperative Bank Limited'} 3, I'r Flo-or,^{PampamahakaviRoad,Chamarajpet'} Bengaluru,^Kamitaka -^{560018, representedby} Respondellts/Defendants its authorised offtcer. This Interlocutory^{Applicationhaving been heardon 0410 2024 in the presence} of Advocates^{lvVs HegdePmkashR' RamachandraandGaneshS Hegde forthe} petitioler/applicant,^{andAdvocatesM/sK V Lokesh' SreevidyaC U and Hemavathi P} for the^{respondents/defendants, and stood overto this dayfor consideration'thc Tribunal} delivered^{the following:-}

¶102

ORDER

¶103

ThepetitionerlilgdlntellocutoryApplication(|A)2|2412024on26.09.2024 under^{5.19(25)of the Recovery of Debts and BankrLrptcyAct' 1993 (as amended from}

¶104

lA No.2l24 of2024 in SA^72l202'l

¶105

time to time)^{prayingfor a directionto the respondents/defendantsto restore theactual} possession of B schedule imrnovable^{proPertytaken on 11.07.2024-The petitioneris} none other than the applicant in^{thc SA.}

¶106

The case set out in the notary attested affidavit^{accompanyingthe IA in} brief is as follows:- This Tribunal^{was pleasedto grant an order of status-quodated} 09.02.2024 in lA No.26612024^{wilh regafito possessionofA ard B scheduleimmovable} properties, subject to the payment of the sum of {88,68.840/- in two instalments^within eight weeks. But this^{petitionerwas unableto complywith the aforcsaid orderdated} 09.02.2024 in full except making some^{part payment.Buttherespondents/defendantson} the strength of the order dated 09.07.2024 of the^{46'h Additional Chief Metropolitan} Magistrate, Bengaluru took^{physical possession} of B^{schedule immovable property. This} petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Cou( ofKamataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.18683/2024 seeking an order to^quash the same.^{The movablesof l7 tenants are kept} locked in B schedule immovable^property and hence the IA.

¶107

The respondents/defendants filed a statemenl objection on 04.10.2024 contending as below:- S.l4 application was finally allowed^{and physicalpossessionof} the schedule irimovable prope(y was already taken.^{The petitioner/applicanthasprayed} for similar prayer in WP No.2697312023 and the^{satnewasdismissedAllowing the} application amounts to allou'ing^{of the main application and hence the sameis not} maintainable. On the above contentions, the^{respondents/defendants praled lbr dismissal} of the IA with costs.

¶108

The only point arises for consideration^{is as to whcther the petitioner/} applicant is entitled to the reliefprayed^for?

¶109

¶110

The Point:- Aggrieved by the application^{(Crl Misc No.5727l2023)dated} 19.07,2023 filed by the respondents/defendants^{as against the petitioner/applicantin} respect of the schedule^{immovablepropertiesbeforethe 8tr' AdditionalChief}

¶111

IANo.2l24 o12024 in SA^r2l2024

¶112

Metropolitan Magishate at^{Bangalore,she filed the SA on 02 02.2024 urder S.l7(l) of} the Act before the Tribunal. The^{petitioner/applicantis none otherthan the borrowerto} financial assistances in the form of two^{home loans of {43 lakhs and{200lakhs availed} from the 1'1 respondent/1sr defendant^{cooperativebanl(.}

¶113

The respondents/defendants issued a sale^{notice dated 28.11.2023} proposing to sell A and B schedule immovable^prope(ies in^{public e-auction on} 05.01.2024. Aggrieved, the^{petitioner/applicant} on^{01.12.2023liled Writ Petition} No.2697312023 before the Hon'ble High Coun of Karnataka^{a1 Bengaluru.Ld counselfor} the rcspondents/defendants along with the^{statementof objectionsfiled on 05 09.2024} produced a copy of the order dated 01,02.2024^passed by the^{Hon'ble High Cout of} Kamataka at Bengaluru in W t^{Petition No.2522212023} a/w^{W tPetition} No.2697312023. A perusal ofthe said oider reveals the follouing^points.

¶114

The prayer that is sought for in Writ Petition No.26971/2023 by the petitioner/applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kanlataka at BengaluiJ reads as

¶115

follows:-

¶116

"(A) Issue a Writ ofce ioruti of any other opproyiute hit atdet ot directian to^quash the inpugned public sale notice of inmovahlc p.aper^. Jute nl rnlt^tt:ttl 2t]21 in Bat* N,.BCCB/AO?SARFAESI6A/23 at Anne re F as the sane is rith o"t ,'l ,!!lt, i9-f td||^akd tu tatal contravention of &e^{ptinciplesaf natualjusticc bevdeand poss} stitablc^{ordcr ketrfn?;n nind} Petitione. is ready to redeemed the^property.

¶117

(B) Issue a ,rrit af Mandamus or any ather approptiate^Wtit at otdet ofditectian dirccting the rcspandent bdnk to withdrN all fwthet^prcceedings ofpublic^salenotice afim^{owble propertyNo.in} DCCB/AO/SARFAESI/60/23 date of^public sale 05.01.2021 ot Annexure F u!L!9r!9!e!Ub9 9!i!!9!!4!!!!) in rcspect o! inpuened public sale natice oler-far seuine asi.le ot det^passcd bv tlle Hon ble &h Additiona! Chief tlerrcoolitan Magistrate l|an?abrc in Crl Misc No.2052/2023.

¶118

(C) Pass such othet approptiate order ol otd€ts as deents fr and proper b;, this Hon ble Court in thefacts and circunsrances ofrhe case ro meet the ends o1justice.^(undetline by this Tribwal)

¶119

The Hon'ble High Court of Kamataka at llangalore, accepting the

¶120

submission of the Ld counscl for the applicants.^granted an interinr order in WP No.269'7312023 on06.12.2023. which reads as follows:-

¶121

" Heard the Ld co nsel fat the pet itioner Shri K v Lakelh. Lrl counlel i! .ln ecte.l to accept not ice for^{therespondentbankThepetitionetis before this Court cullingh qwstion assale noticedqted} 28.1L2A23, indicatikg that the sale afthe prcpertr^would be^{conducted on05.01.2021.The} anoud^{in due} as indicated in rhe sale notice is^{?61,41,308/-. Thelefore, the petitianer} sha^deposit l0% of^thedue a ount as indicated in the taLe^notice an ot^{befure 02.01.2021.} In^the evnt^{the petitianer would hnl}

¶122

IANo.2l2:r ol202.l in SA 7212024

¶123

deposit an! anount as indicated hereinoboye, the sate shalt Eo ai an.l the tqtc shatt be taken to its tagicat conclusian. lnthesent. the peh ionet woul.l fugl the ilte no o gtu t.d tott^, ttu bunt shdtt co ;i(ler lot^{restorutionofhepassession to the han.ls} ofthe patitianet^'

¶124

It is further revealed from the ordeI dated 01.02.2024 that Lrl counsel, Shi K V Lokesh appearing for the respondent banl before the Hon,ble High Court submitted that not even a single rupee is paid pursuant to the order dated 28.1L202j passed by the Hon'ble High Court earlier. I-lowever, while disposing the Wrir petirions as per order dared, 01.02.2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka permitted the respondents/ defendants to take possession in a manner known to law with liberty to the petitioner/ applicant to avail remedy. The relevant ponion of the aforesaid orcler dated 01.02.2024 reads as below:-

¶125

"lfthe bank hds restorcd possession onthe strcngth of the interin o e/,ttisl the bank ta take possession in a nannel knawn to ta.l,- The petitioncr is ahavr.tt tiberty ro at,ott ,,J \uch renedr, as h

¶126

¶127

In the light of the permission given by thc Hon,blc High Cout of Karnataka to the responde[ts/defendants for taking possessio[ of A al1il B schedule immovable properties and also in view of the order passed in lA 296/2024 by this Tribunal, rlothing remains with the Tribuial to adjudicatc ir this lA. ln the above circumstances, the petitioner/applicant is no1 entitled 10 the relief prayed lor and thus the IA is liable to be dismissed. However, it is submirted by the respondents/defendants before this T bunal that the physical possession of A and B schetiule jmmovable properties have been taken. [t is reported by the petitione./applicant in this lA before this Tribunal that movables properties of 17 tenants in B schedule inmovable property. including study materials, uniform ofchildren, documents oftenants in occupatiun etc are kept locked in such premises. If that be so, the movable properlies, which are not pledged,/h)?othecated to the respondents/defendants and kept locked in A or B schedule immovable propitiates may be permitted lo be renloved liom such premises by the owners ofsuch propefties on a date and time specilied by the respondents/deibndanls, but not later rhan thirty days from today, with due notice 1o such pcople affixed in a

¶128

IA No.2l24 of2024 in^SA72120?r

¶129

conspicuous place ofA and^{B schedule immovable properties. This liberty is granted to} the petitioner/applicant or her^{lenantson humanitarian consideration onlY.Exerciseof} right by the 1'r defendant cooperative^{bank10 take possessionof A atld B schedulc} immovable^properties is a^{statutoryright conferred under thc Act.Therefore, it is not} open for the^{petitioner/applicantor hertenanlsto misusethe libcrty granledand to} trespass into such^{property, whichhas alreadybeen takenpossessionby the respondents/} defendants. ln such an apprehension ofeventuality,^{it is alwaysoPen lbr the respondents/} defendants to take appropriate remedial measures^{by lvay of policeassistanceto protect} its possession and to ensure that the rule oflaw is^prevailed.

¶130

ll. ln the result, lA 212412024 is disrnissecl uith lhe^liberl) Sranted^{to the}

¶131

petitioner/applicant or her tenants as abov9. No costs.

¶132

[Dictated^{to d! PA.tuecy oa the codputet.cotecled a J PrchauncedL]) nE rt lkaFn f,,lillilo\ llis lE lqh} day ot Arcber. 20211 U , q I^{rvTrAZ ALI} ] PRLSIDING OFIICER

¶133

IN THE DEBTS RI]C]OVT:IiY fRIBUNAL - I, KAI{NAI AKA AT 1], \NCA LORE

¶134

I,RESENt': SRI Il\1f tAZ ALI PITESIDINC OI-I.ICER

¶135

Dared !hu 09h dr-\ of Ocrober.2024

¶136

INTERLOCU t olty .\t,pr_tc...i.l0r- No .2121/2021 IN SECUR]TISATION APPI,IC.'I]ON NO.72 OF 2021

¶137

Betrveen

¶138

Sudha S, Wo'lhimmc Go!da. 814,41r Main, Behind AcrLianerr Tenrnt, Cangondani Hait,. a.,,gr,,, , KarnaBka 560019.

¶139

I'ctilioner/Applicant

¶140

And

¶141

Ihc BcnE.rlure Ctr) ('oul(. .,'.. B.r,rk I .rnrr.d. i. lr I.lour Plrnllrrrl.: l:., i l( ,:rrr. r lr.Lrn.Lr.iripcr. Bengaluru. LarnJlala )r,r,L,. i. lr:.\ iDr il: br.r,lch at 7F. I4r ,1ain Ro..rd. Vij.rr r,., ,g:.r. tling.rlorr. Karnataka - 560u40. rcprrstnrcJl.r ils Branch l\lanalcrarrLt irr .,.,.(.. .. I(u5p,, Llcnls/lJet!ndanL5

¶142

Ol{rrhlt

¶143

\ 0'^,0"

Smt Sudha S v. The Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sudha S v. The Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseema Jaleel versus Federal Bank

The Federal Bank Ltd. versus Central Bank of India

Shri Satya Prakash versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Y .Radhika Poultry Farm Rep by Its Prorrietor M/S Yalamanchali Radhika

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mr D Hari Prasad

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Kollivelchi Navneetha Rao