Partly allowed

Dayananda v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2023WP/1277/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Articles 226/227 sought directions to SBI CPIOs to furnish RTI documents and to restrain IRP committee meeting. Court directed CCI to dispose of pending appeal and refused to entertain relief regarding documents due to Supreme Court observations.

What did the court decide?

Directing 7th respondent (CCI) to dispose of appeal pending before it within a fortnight; other prayers for documents and restraining committee meeting are left open/not entertained now.

Dayananda Vs State Bank of India — RTI and Transparency | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1277 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1277 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMA REDDY MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE SUSPENDED BOARD OF M/S BHARATH INFRA EXPORTS AND IMPORTS LTD., RESIDING AT NO.207/2 RANJITHA FARM BOMMASANDRA ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 560 099.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.VIVEK S.REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVAKUMAR V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CMD HAVING OFFICE AT STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶14

¶15

WP No. 1277 of 2023

¶16

CORPORATE CENTRE STATE BANK BHAVAN MADAME CAMA ROAD NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI – 400 021.

¶17

SRI G.V.RAMA KRISHNA AGM, SBI, SAM BRANCH AUTHORIZED OFFICER HAVING OFFICE AT 2^ND FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING LHO CAMPUS, NO.65 ST. MARK’S ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA SAM BRANCH, 2^ND FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING LHO CAMPUS NO.65, ST.MARK’S ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA BANGALORE CITY BRANCH J.C. ROAD BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶20

THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA TFCPC, NO.32, RESIDENCY ROAD SHANTHALA NAGAR ASHOK NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶21

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (SBI BANK) DEPT/OFFICE, THE FAA AND

¶22

¶23

WP No. 1277 of 2023

¶24

GENERAL MANAGER, NW-1 SBI, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 65 ST.MARK’S ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶25

THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2^ND FLOOR, AUGUST KRANTHI BHAVAN

¶26

BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 066.

¶27

SRI RAVINDRA BELEYUR INTERIM RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL (IRP)- FOR M/S BHARATH INFRA EXPORTS AND IMPORTS LTD., HAVING OFFICE AT “SHREEVATHSA”, 428 19^TH B CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT.B.G.NAYANATARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.K.N.PHANEENDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI VEERENDRA PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6; SRI B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO 6 TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTS AS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER IN ITS RTI APPLICATION DTD 20.07.2021 AND 19.08.2021 (ANNEXURE-O AND R) AND ETC.,

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

¶33

WP No. 1277 of 2023

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioner in the subject petition has sought for the following prayer:

¶36

“WHEREFORE, it is prayed that his Hon’ble Court be

¶37

pleased to:

¶38

A. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, directing the respondent 1 to 6 to furnish the documents as sought by the petitioner in its RTI application dtd 20.07.2021 and 19.08.2021 (Annexure – O & R).

¶39

B. In the alternative, direct the respondent 7 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure – X) expeditiously.

¶40

C. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent 8 not to conduct the COC committee meeting scheduled on 18.01.2023 at 3 p.m. or any other further date in C.P.(I.B.)No.112/BB/2019 pertaining to M/s Bharath Infra Exports and Imports Ltd till furnishing of documents by the respondent 1 to 6 as sought by the petitioner under RTI applications dtd 20.07.2021 and 19.08.2021 (Annexure – O & R) and to direct the respondent 8 to consider the said documents.”

¶41

Prayer A is against the Bank directing the Bank to furnish

¶42

documents as sought in RTI applications dated 20.07.2021 and 19.08.2021. All the prayers that are sought are at large before

¶43

¶44

WP No. 1277 of 2023

¶45

the 7^th respondent-Central Information Commission

¶46

(‘Commission’ for short) where the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the documents that are not furnished to him by respondents 1 to 6.

¶47

Heard Sri.Vivek.S.Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner, Smt.B.G.Nayanatara, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.K.N.Phaneendra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6 and Sri.B.C.Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8.

¶48

The grievance of the learned senior counsel for petitioner is that the 7^th respondent is not disposing the appeal despite it being filed on 23.12.2021. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the 7^th respondent to dispose the appeal pending before it, which is said to have been filed on 23.12.2021, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. All contentions qua the delivery of documents or otherwise are left open for the petitioner to be urged before the Commission.

¶49

¶50

WP No. 1277 of 2023

¶51

Learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that

¶52

he has filed applications before this Court seeking certain documents. Those applications can also be filed before the competent authority or the commission, upon which appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.

¶53

Insofar as prayer (c) is concerned, the petitioner was before the Apex Court. A perusal at the averments made in the memorandum of the special leave petition would indicate that the averments in the present petition were all a part of the said averment concerning a person by name Sri.D.C.Mohan.

¶54

A perusal at the order passed by the NCLAT would also indicate that the plea of Sri.D.C.Mohan not being an authorized representative of the petitioner is also gone into. The Apex Court answering the Special Leave Petition has passed the following order:

¶55

“We do not find any good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶56

The debt has arisen – on account of honouring the Letters of Credit (LCs) as per the date of

¶57

¶58

WP No. 1277 of 2023

¶59

development between 20.10.2016 to 26.12.2016. These entries have been recorded by the respondent – Bank in their books.

¶60

Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, on instructions, states that the appellant is a going concern and the assets of the corporate debtor as well as personal assets of the director(s) subject matter of charge, etc. are more than the liabilities. The appellant is ready and willing to pay the dues of the respondent.

¶61

While we dismiss this appeal, it will be open to the appellant to raise this plea and contention if available in law. We have not made any comment either way in this regard or as to the remedy available to the appellant.

¶62

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶63

In the light of the order being passed by the Apex Court where the Apex Court observes that the assets of the corporate debtor M/s.Bharath Infra Exports and Imports Ltd., the petitioner herein, as well as personal assets of the Director, one of whom is the petitioner herein which are subject matter of charge are more than the liabilities that are to be paid by the Corporate Debtor. Further observation is that the Corporate Debtor is ready and willing to pay the dues to the Bank. Therefore, the special leave petition comes to be dismissed.

¶64

¶65

WP No. 1277 of 2023

¶66

Any observation being made on the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would, in the considered view of this Court, run counter to what the appellant/corporate debtor had accepted before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Court would refrain from entertaining the third prayer, in the teeth of the order passed by the NCLAT and the Apex Court (supra) . It is for the petitioner to avail of such remedy as is available in law, at the appropriate time.

¶67

All contentions of both the parties urged in this petition are kept open. Ordered accordingly.

¶68

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed.

¶69

SD/JUDGE

¶70

BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 115

Dayananda v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayananda v. State Bank of India

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

Wisdom World Developers Private Limited Vs Dr Sabita Ramamurthy

Sri G Sathivel Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Sri Banashankar a Vs the State of Karnataka

Girish Vs the State of Karnataka

Govinda Raju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri R v Ramachandra Rao Vs the State of Karnataka