Dismissed

Sri Rajesh Kumar v. Authorised Officer State Bank of India

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2023WP/2/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissing a Sick Asset case. Court held the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an adequate alternate statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to file appeal before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed.

Sri Rajesh Kumar Vs Authorised Officer State Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2023 (GM-DRT)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. RAJESH KUMAR S/O SRI. CHOUDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.25, 7TH MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560 026. (PETITIONER-BORROWER OF HOUSING LOAN)

¶7

ALSO AT NO.18(OLD NO.40), 9TH CROSS, BHUVANESWARI NAGAR, BSK III STAGE, KATHRIGUPPE, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶8

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

¶9

ALSO AT C/O MR. V. MOHAN, NO.102, "MATRU CHHAYA" OLD NUMBER 4/NEW NO.15, RAILWAY APPROACH ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. V. MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

WP No. 2 of 2023

AND:

AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, MYSORE BANK BUILDING, BKG COMPLEX,"A" BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. (IST RESPONDENT IS A BANKING COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER BANKING REGULATIONS ACT)

¶16

SMT. DEEPA K. D/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.119/2, GANESH MANDIRA ROAD 2ND BLOCK, TYAGARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 028. (AUCTION PURCHASER OF SCHENDULE PROPERTY)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. M.K. SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V. VISHWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 04.11.2022, PASSED BY THE RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A) IN SA NO.228/2022 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SARFAESI ACT AND SIE RULES .

¶20

¶21

WP No. 2 of 2023

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal for dismissing SA.No.228/2022.

¶25

The writ petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal would not be maintainable as the petitioner has an alternate, statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to contend that the petition is maintainable on the score that the Bank has played a fraud on the Debt Recovery Tribunal and therefore, they should be stopped from putting the property of the petitioner to sale. The ground on which the petitioner alleges fraud is that the bank had accepted an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and notwithstanding such acceptance, had bought the property for sale .

¶27

¶28

WP No. 2 of 2023

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

¶30

Bank would clarify that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was accepted under protest, and the total outstanding was about Rs.75,00,000/-. Since it was received under protest, it is not a concluded acceptance for the petitioner to claim that the Bank is stopped from bringing the property of the petitioner to sale.

¶31

Be all the contentions as they may, the petitioner is at liberty to urge all these contentions before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In the event that the petitioner would file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall consider all the contentions that are advanced by the petitioner in the appeal and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sri Rajesh Kumar v. Authorised Officer State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajesh Kumar v. Authorised Officer State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagesh S Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna. M Vs Smt. Komala. H

Smt Shashikala Vs Managing Director

Sri. Jayaram. R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S. Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Murthy Naik @ Shivamurthy Vs the Union of India