The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that dismissed a review application. The court held that since the main recovery order had not been challenged in appeal, the High Court saw no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5281 OF 2020 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SENTHILKUMAR D.V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAI M PATIL., 0ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SAILAL V.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKHAR AHMED B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DRT ORDER DATED 31.12.2019 IN I.A.NO.2009/2019 (DIARY
NC: 2024:KHC:32905 WP No. 5281 of 2020
NO.1454/2019) ANNEXURE-A ANNULLING THE COST OF RS.10,000/PENDING ADJUDICATION ON THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court seeking quash of Order
dated 31.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.2009/2019 on the file
of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru produced at Annexure-A and for direction to respondent No.2-Bank to produce loan documents.
for respondent-Bank not adhering to the provisions of the said Act, 2002. In the meanwhile, simultaneously respondent No.2-Bank had initiated the recovery proceedings in O.A.No.229/2008 which is admittedly allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by order dated 08.12.2014 directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,77,47,465/- said order has not been challenged by the petitioner till date. A review petition seem to have been filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.2009/2019 which has been dismissed by the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 31.12.2019. Aggrieved by the same petitioner is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:32905 WP No. 5281 of 2020
With the above observation, petition stands
dismissed .
Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE
RL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere with an order passed by the DRT in a review application where the primary decree has not been challenged in appeal.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the statute to challenge the debt recovery proceedings.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. P Padma
Esvee Express Logistics Pvt Ltd.
The Authorised Officer, Axis Bank
The Authorized Officer, International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt Ltd.
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
