Dismissed

Mrs Thanuja Boloor v. Canara Bnak

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2020WP/227/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a borrower challenging the dismissal of her S_FAR_A_E_S_I appeal by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) for failure to meet higher pre-deposit requirements. The Court upheld the statutory pre-deposit provision and retained the petitioner's liberty to argue the matter before the Tribunal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mrs Thanuja Boloor Vs Canara Bnak — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.227 OF 2020 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Mrs. THANUJA BOLOOR W/O. LATE DEVADAS KOTIAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.7-3-179/1 KOCHIKAD HOUSE MATADAKANI KOCHIKAD, MANGALURU – 575 006 D.K. DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI G.H. RAVIKUMAR FOR SRI SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

CANARA BANK DERALAKATTE BRANCH MANGALURU – 574 160 REPRESENTED BY MANAGER

¶14

RANJAN N.M S/O NARAYANA POOJARY SATHYABHAMA COMPOUND MATADAKANI KOCHIKAD MANGALURU – 575 006 D.K. DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 15.10.2019 ON IA.NO.148 OF 2019 AND ORDER DATED: 14.11.2019 PASSED IN AIR (SA) NO.247 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF DEBT RECOVERTY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI AS PER ANNEXURE–A AND B AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA.NO.148/2019 AND APPEAL IN IAR (SA) NO.247/2019 ON THE FILE OF DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI AS PRAYED FOR THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri Ravikumar G.H, learned counsel

¶21

appearing on behalf of Sri B.S. Sachin for petitioner.

¶22

Perused the records. Petitioner filed an

¶23

application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2020 (for short ‘SARFAESI’) questioning possession notice dated 14^th December 2018. An application for stay was also filed, which came to be set aside by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘DRT) by an order dated 1^st February 2019, Annexure-P,

¶24

¶25

said I.A. was allowed conditionally, namely, petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- on or before 15^th February 2019 and further sum of Rs.8,50,000/- on or before 1^st March 2019.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal came to be filed by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (for short ‘DRAT) along with an application I.A.No.675/2019 for waiver of statutory amount by way of pre-deposit. Appellate Tribunal by impugned order dated 15^th October 2019 Annexure-A directed the appellant therein to make predeposit of Rs.23,00,000/- with the Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal. On account of non-depositing of said amount, appeal came to be dismissed on 14^th November 2019 Annexure-B. Hence, petitioner has prayed for these orders being quashed.

¶27

It is the contention of Sri G.H. Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that Appellate Tribunal arbitrarily dismissed the appeal without assigning any reasons. He would also submit that

¶28

¶29

conditions imposed by DRAT to deposit the amounts with the first respondent has resulted in grave prejudice to the right of petitioner and second respondent – borrower had played fraud by conceding with the first respondent which was also subject matter of consideration before DRAT and as such impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and on perusal of records, it is noted that Tribunal has rightly invoked 3^rd proviso to Section 18 of SARFAESI to call upon petitioner to deposit 25% of debt by way of pre-deposit as condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. It is no doubt true that petitioner has been placed in more worse situation than she was before the DRT wherein petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- whereas DRAT has directed under the impugned Order that petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.23,00,000/-.

¶31

Be that as it may. Appeal having been dismissed for non-compliance of orders, it would be open

¶32

¶33

to petitioner to pursue her grievance before DRT, Bengaluru in the pending SA No.49/2019 for reduction or waiver and no opinion is expressed on the merits. Contention of both parties are kept open in that regard. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to urge all such grounds including grounds urged in the present writ petition before DRT.

¶34

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

HR CT-NN

Mrs Thanuja Boloor v. Canara Bnak

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mrs Thanuja Boloor v. Canara Bnak

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Agricultural Produce Vs Sri Chandramouli K M

Mrs Rani M Alex Vs Shri Ramesh

Mr N Omkarappa Vs Mr. Puthra G.T.

Sri. Revanayya R Poojar Vs Umashankar

Shekaharagouda Vs the State of Karnataka Rep by

Smt G B Geeta Vs the State of Karnataka Rep by