Partly allowed

Mr. N.K. Mohta v. Edelweiss Asset Resconstruction Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024WP/2132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by petitioners to quash orders dismissing their chamber appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal for non-prosecution of objections. Court set aside orders and granted time to remove objections.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 08.08.2023 and 20.11.2023 set aside. Two weeks time granted to remove objections.

Mr. N.K. Mohta Vs Edelweiss Asset… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11960-DB WP No. 2132 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 2132 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. N.K. MOHTA, S/O RAM RATAN MOHTA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D-1201, MANTRI GREENS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶10

Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MRS. SARITA MOHTA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O MR. N.K. MOHTA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D-1201, MANTRI GREENS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. MILIND DANGE, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11960-DB WP No. 2132 of 2024

¶15

AND:

¶16

EDELWEISS ASSET RESCONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD (EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF INDIA) REPRESENTED THROUGH MR. D.G. PRASAD, CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT CENTRE 1 BUILDING, 21^ST FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005.

¶17

REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE AT: RAMANASHREE ARCADE, 4^TH FLOOR, NO.18, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. IT IS REGISTERED COMPANIES ACT 1956 (1).

¶18

VINTAGE FOODS AND INUDSTRIES LTD., UNDER LIQUIDATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS LIQUIDATOR, MR. PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA, NO.58, 3^RD CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, HEBBAL, BANGALORE – 560 024. ITS REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956 (1).

¶19

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, IDBI HOUSE, 58, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027. ITS REGISTERED UNDER BANKING REGISTRATION ACT.

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11960-DB WP No. 2132 of 2024

¶21

KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL

¶22

INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

¶23

CORPORATION LIMITED,

¶24

REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MSIL, HOUSE 36, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.

¶25

REGISTERED UNDER BANKING REGULATION ACT.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UDNER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a)ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN AIR NO.495/2023 (IN OA NO.362/2002) DATED 08/08/2023 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A b)ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN CA NO.15/2023 (IN AIR NO.495/2023) DATED 20/11/2023 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard learned counsel Sri.Milind Dange for

¶33

petitioners and learned counsel Sri.Vignesh S Shetty for respondent No.1. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11960-DB WP No. 2132 of 2024

¶35

The petitioners are before this Court, questioning the order dated 08.08.2023 in AIR No.495/2023 arising out of O.A.No.326/2002 of the Registrar and also order dated 20.11.2023 of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (for short “Appellate Tribunal”) in Chamber Appeal No.15/2023 of the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the Chamber Appeal filed against the order of the Registrar rejecting the appeal for non-prosecution of office objections is dismissed.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that due to unavoidable reasons, the petitioners could not comply the objections raised by the Registry of the Appellate Tribunal in AIR No.495/2023. For noncompliance of objections, by order dated 08.08.2023, the Registry declined to entertain the appeal. The chamber appeal filed against the said order is also rejected by the Appellate Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we feel that the petitioners ought to have been provided one more opportunity to remove the

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11960-DB WP No. 2132 of 2024

¶38

office objections. A litigant shall not go out of the Court with an impression that sufficient opportunity is not provided. Therefore, we are inclined to grant some time to comply or remove the objections raised by the Appellate Tribunal which is enclosed to memo dated 20.03.2024.

¶39

Hence, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(a) Impugned order dated 08.08.2023 in AIR.No.495/2023 and C.A.No.15/2023 dated 20.11.2023 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai are set aside.

¶42

(b) The petitioners shall appear before the Registrar, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai on 02.04.2024 . From the said date, two weeks time is granted to comply or remove the objections. If the petitioners remove the objections within the time granted above, the

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11960-DB WP No. 2132 of 2024

¶44

Appellate Tribunal shall proceed further, in accordance with law. If the petitioners fail to remove or comply the office objections within the time granted above, the impugned orders shall revive.

¶45

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

MPK/CT:JR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Mr. N.K. Mohta v. Edelweiss Asset Resconstruction Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. N.K. Mohta v. Edelweiss Asset Resconstruction Company Ltd.

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

Maxim Melville Pinto Vs Richard R Pinto

M/S Caesars Restaurant Vs M/S T Shivaram & Others

Sri J S Kumar Vs Smt Hemavathi

Sri Pradeep Vs the Canara Bank

Managing Director, Stanley Automotive Vs Sri. K. P. Deepak Gowda

Sri.Sannachithappa Vs the State of Karnataka