Dismissed

Sri.D.G.Siddanagowda v. Pragati Krishna Gramin Bank

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/36148/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition filed by a defaulting borrower challenging the bank's auction notice. The court held that no case of discrimination was made out due to lack of specific pleadings and that enforcing negative equality or appealing to commercial wisdom lies outside writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Regularization of auction proceeds and dismissal of writ petition.

Sri.D.G.Siddanagowda Vs Pragati Krishna Gramin Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 36148 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 36148 OF 2018 (GM-DRT)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. D.G. SIDDANAGOWDA, S/O BASAVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O TARAGANAHALLI, HONNALI TALUK-577 217. DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

PRAGATI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK, HAVING ITS H.O. AT GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY AND A BRANCH OFFICE AT BENAKANAHALLI BRANCH, HONNALI TALUK-577 217, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE GENRERAL MANAGER, PRAGATI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY-583101.

¶13

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING SUPERVISION, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRE-1, WORD TRADE CENTRE, CUFFEE PARADE, MUMBAI-400005.

¶14

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA/BHARAT SARKAR, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES (BANKING DIVISION), 3^RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 36148 of 2018

¶17

THE RECOVERY OFFICER-1, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, LIC JEEVANMANGAL BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, NO.4, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. U.R. NAYAK FOR R1 & R2, ADVOCATE; SRI. KUMAR M.N., CGC., FOR R4 & R5; NOTICE TO R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 REPRESENTATED BY THE SECRETARY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28.8.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B- GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking for writ of mandamus

¶24

to direct respondents no.1 and 4 to consider petitioner's representation at Annexure-A and for quashing of auction notice at Annexure-M.

¶25

Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had availed financial assistance from respondent no.1 – Bank for its business. Since there was default in repayment, recovery proceedings were initiated by respondent - bank before Debt Recovery Tribunal (‘DRT’ for short) in O.A.no.3641/2013. Said application was allowed by DRT on 12.09.2014 and order for recovery of Rs.23,60,958/- from petitioner with interest was passed.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 36148 of 2018

¶28

Likewise in O.A.No.781/2013, order was passed on 28.11.2014 for recovery of Rs.33,87,276/- with interest against petitioner.

¶29

It is submitted that after passing of award, petitioner had submitted representation on 28.08.2017 seeking relaxation in payment of award amount as per Annexure-'A'. It was also submitted that in meanwhile, O.S.no.47/2015 filed by petitioner's sisters for partition was pending before Civil Court. It was specifically submitted that by considering representation filed by M/s Parimala Alloy Components (P) Ltd., State Bank of Mysore had settled entire outstanding amount of Rs.1,37,21,843/- by receiving only Rs.6,00,000/- and similar benefit ought to be extended to petitioner. It was submitted that as respondents had proceeded to issue auction notice as per Annexure-'M' without considering petitioner's representation at Annexure-'A', this writ petition was filed and same called for interference.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondents submitted that on ground of State Bank of Mysuru settled dues of another person by receiving nominal amount, petitioner cannot not seek similar consideration by respondent no.1 - bank. It was submitted that under what circumstances and consideration, State Bank of

¶31

¶32

WP No. 36148 of 2018

¶33

Mysore which was a different entity altogether, had taken such decision, is neither placed on record nor could be gone into under writ jurisdiction and in any case, petitioner could not seek to enforce negative equality. As petitioner had defaulted in repayment of loan amount, respondent - bank had obtained award and taken steps for recovery of same in accordance with law by issuing auction notice as per Annexure-'M'. Since same was in accordance with law, it did not call for interference and sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶34

On last date of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he had instructions to file application for impleading M/s Parimala Alloy Components (P) Ltd., and challenge benefit granted to them as arbitrary/discriminatory. After making above submissions and securing adjournment by two weeks to file application, when matter is listed today, further time was sought.

¶35

Since matter is of 2018, petitioner was all along aware of said transaction and had ample opportunity to question said action, if he was aggrieved thereby and petitioner could not be permitted to challenge action of some other Bank

¶36

¶37

WP No. 36148 of 2018

¶38

in respect of some other person, further indulgence was denied

¶39

and matter was taken up for disposal.

¶40

Firstly, there is no dispute about petitioner’s liability towards respondents no.1 and 2 - bank. It is also not in dispute that said bank had obtained award from DRT and was in process of recovery of it’s dues under said award, lawfully. On perusal of petitioner’s representation, it is seen that absolutely no particulars of transaction between debtor and Bank in exemplar instance, without specific pleadings in respect of discrimination and without stating whether OTS scheme of respondent - bank was similar as that of State Bank of Mysuru, no case of discrimination could be made out. In any case, matters of commercial wisdom of Banks cannot be subject matter of writ petition, as they would involve enquiry into factual aspects and subjective satisfaction of authorities.

¶41

Further, even if some benefit was wrongly granted to some other person, it is settled law that petitioner cannot seek for enforcing negative equality in writ jurisdiction.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 36148 of 2018

¶44

In view of above mentioned circumstances, petitioner

¶45

is not entitled for any relief. Writ petition being devoid of merits

¶46

is accordingly dismissed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Psg*

Sri.D.G.Siddanagowda v. Pragati Krishna Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.D.G.Siddanagowda v. Pragati Krishna Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S M M Creations Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Nagendrappa S/O Gundappa Gowda Vs Chinnappagowda S/O Manjappa Gowda

Chandranayaka Vs Javaranayaka

S. P. Kumar Vs Chief Secretary

Sri H N Sathyanarayana Rao I.P.S.(Retd) Vs State of Karnataka

Valarian Alphonso S/O Baptist Alphonso Vs Stephania Alias Stepheny Alphonso