Dismissed

Eranna H v. Uco Bank

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2021WA/162/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a Single Judge order that rejected a writ petition seeking review of a Debt Recovery Tribunal direction to deposit money during SARAFESA proceedings. The Court held no ground for interference as the Tribunal case remained pending.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; admission declined; appellant directed to place material before the Tribunal.

Eranna H Vs Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.162/2020 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

ERANNA H. S/O HANUMANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18, KEMPAIAH BUILDING, 9^TH CROSS, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI POST OFFICE BANGALORE - 560 015

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI A.T.MALLYA, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . UCO BANK THE AUTHORISED OFFICER BANGALORE JAYANAGAR BRANCH, 238/35, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011

¶14

2 . MRS THIPPAKKA WIFE OF HANUMANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18, KEMPAIAH BUILDING, 9^TH CROSS, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 015

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(R1 SERVED V/O DTD 23.03.2020)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE LEGALITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION NO.529282/2019 (GM-DRT) DATED 28.01.2020 AND SET ASIDE THE SAME.

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.52928/2019 (Mr. Eranna H Vs. The Authorised Officer and Another).

¶22

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent - bank has initiated an action under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Endorsement of Security Interest Act, 2002, against the present appellant and the present appellant has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal has granted interim order on 19.02.2019 directing the present appellant to deposit Rs.26.00 lakhs on or before 20.03.2019. The aforesaid order was not complied with and again on 27.12.2019, the Tribunal has extended time to deposit the aforesaid amount. The

¶23

¶24

appellant has again made a prayer for extension of time and the time as prayed for by the appellant was granted by the Tribunal on 22.01.2020 on a condition to deposit the aforesaid amount within two weeks and it was ordered that no coercive steps should be taken against the appellant by the respondent. However, the amount has not been deposited.

¶25

In the considered opinion of this Court, as the matter is still pending before the Tribunal, learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶26

Accordingly, admission is declined. The appellant shall be free to place all the material before the Tribunal by filing an appropriate application. In case an adverse order is passed, the appellant does have a remedy of preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶27

Another important aspect of the matter is that the property in question has already been sold by the respondent-Bank and the appellant does have a remedy of taking an appropriate action in accordance with law against

¶28

¶29

the sale, if he is so aggrieved. It is made clear that we have not commented anything on merits in respect of the sale in question.

¶30

No orders as to costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Eranna H v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eranna H v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sudhanva Bhandolkar B K Vs the State of Karnataka

India Awake for Transparency Vs Mr Azim Hasham Premji

V Nandan Kamath Vs Muralinath Gupta

Siemens Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka