A writ petition challenged a Debt Recovery Tribunal order under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Citing the alternative appellate remedy under Section 20 and a Supreme Court precedent, the High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, leaving contentions open.
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 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 9764 OF 2020 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY MS. SINDU P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. N. PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:38749 WP No. 9764 of 2020
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI V.S. SANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN OA No.1089/2013 ON THE FILE OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-E. DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER DATED 18.05.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
The present petition calling in question the order
passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1993). Section 20 of the Act of 1993 provides remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:38749 WP No. 9764 of 2020
20 of the Act of 1993 and in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others [2010 (8) SCC 110], the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a DRT order is maintainable when an appeal remedy exists under Section 20 of the RDB Act, 1993?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and othersRelied on¶2
United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others [2010 (8) SCC 110] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sree Anjaneya Co-operative Bank Ltd.
The Federal Bank Limited, Rajajinagar Branch
J.T. Rajan
Amala Jasmine
K. V. Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
