Dismissed¶¶43

Ajay Kumar Khemka v. the Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2025WP/11623/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act; Section 13(2) notice; Section 13(4) possession notice; Section 18; condonation of delay; DRAT Chennai; AIR No.462/2015; I.A.No.471/2015; SA No.365/2010; DRT; HDFC Bank Ltd.; Centurion Bank of Punjab amalgamation; NPA classification; debt recovery; writ petition dismissed; Article 226; Article 227; WP No.11623 of 2017 (GM-DRT); Karnataka High Court; Rs.1.91 crores liability.

What did the court decide?

The DRAT committed no error of law or of jurisdiction requiring interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ¶¶43

Ajay Kumar Khemka Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:33238-DB WP No. 11623 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 11623 OF 2017 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

AJAY KUMAR KHEMKA S/O LATE MURALIDHAR KHEMKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶11

USHA KHEMKA W/O AJAY KUMAR KHEMKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.201 & 201A, II FLOOR, KALPATHARU DOLLARS PARK SITE NO.66, AECS LAYOUT, SY NO.13, WARD NO.100, 3^RD STAGE, GEDDALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 094.

¶14

(BY SRI. MAYANK HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.V. SUNDARA RAMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER HDFC BANK LTD CENTRAL OFFICE, GOLDEN TOWERS AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI BANGALORE-560 017.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. LEELA RANI H.P., ADVOCATE)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:33238-DB WP No. 11623 of 2017

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI DATED 16.11.2016 IN I.A.NO.471/2015 IN A.I.R.462/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE A.I.R. 462/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶27

The present petition has been filed challenging the judgment and award dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the DRT'), Chennai in AIR No.462/2015.

¶28

The petitioners have availed two loan facilities from the Centurion Bank of Punjab later which stood amalgamated with HDFC Bank. Out of two loan facilities availed by the petitioners, one loan facility was in respect of the housing loan of Rs.30.44 lakhs which was availed by the petitioners on 26.09.2006. The said housing loan facility was to be discharged

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33238-DB WP No. 11623 of 2017

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

through equal monthly installments. Besides the aforesaid housing loan, the petitioners also availed cash credit loan of Rs.50,00,000/-. The petitioner had secured the loan by depositing the title deeds of the property bearing Flat No.201 measuring 1700 sq.ft. and Flat No.201-A measuring 1200 sq.ft., in all total 2900 sq. ft. in favour of the respondent - Bank. The petitioners did not make the repayment of the loan and thus, their loan accounts were classified NPA.

¶32

The respondent - Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 12.12.2009 for recovery of a sum of Rs.29.32 lakhs which was for the principal amount and notice for recovery of a sum of Rs.31.62 lakhs in respect of housing loan and another notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 29.12.2009 for second loan account of Rs.49.95 lakhs. Thus, the total liability in the month of December - 2009 was Rs.1.91 crores. Thereafter, the bank also issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 26.03.2010.

¶33

The petitioners challenged the aforesaid notices before the DRT. However, the DRT by order dated 04.07.2012 dismissed the SA No.365/2010 and affirmed the notice under

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33238-DB WP No. 11623 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act issued by the respondent - Bank. The said order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the DRT in SA No.365/2010 came to be challenged before the DRT seeking review of the order. However, the DRT declined to review the order by its order dated 07.04.2014. The second review application was filed for seeking review of the order dated 07.04.2014 which was also declined by the DRT. Thereafter, the petitioners approached Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the DRAT') by filing an appeal in AIR No.462/2015 with delay of 32 days.

¶37

The Tribunal after considering the orders passed by the DRT was of the view that the finding of the DRT in respect of notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) were well reasoned and they do not require any interference. In otherwords, it was held that the DRAT does not have power under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, the DRAT has dismissed the appeal on the ground of merit as well as on the ground of limitation.

¶38

We have considered the submissions and perused the impugned order of the DRT and order passed by the DRAT

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:33238-DB WP No. 11623 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

as well as the provisions of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. We

¶43

do not find that DRAT has committed any error of law of jurisdiction which requires interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, decline to grant any indulgence to the petitioners at this distant point of time as much as the petitioners availed loans way back in the year 2006 and as on December – 2009 and the total liability against the petitioners was Rs.1.91 crores. We dismiss the writ petition leaving it to the bank to take appropriate measures for recovery of its dues against the petitioners.

¶44

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶45

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶46

RKA

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 16.11.2016 of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in I.A.No.471/2015 in A.I.R.462/2015, dismissing the petitioners' appeal on merits as well as on limitation.¶¶27
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai · 16.11.2016
Prior proceeding
Petitioners availed two loan facilities from Centurion Bank of Punjab, which later amalgamated with HDFC Bank.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
One facility was a housing loan of Rs.30.44 lakhs availed on 26.09.2006, dischargeable through equal monthly installments.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
The petitioners also availed a cash credit loan of Rs.50,00,000/-, secured by deposit of title deeds of Flat No.201 (1700 sq.ft.) and Flat No.201-A (1200 sq.ft.) with the Bank.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
On non-repayment, the petitioners' loan accounts were classified as NPA.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
Bank issued Section 13(2) SARFAESI notices on 12.12.2009 (Rs.29.32 lakhs principal; Rs.31.62 lakhs housing loan) and on 29.12.2009 (Rs.49.95 lakhs for the second loan account); total liability as on December 2009 was Rs.1.91 crores.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
Bank issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 26.03.2010.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
DRT dismissed SA No.365/2010 by order dated 04.07.2012 and affirmed the Bank's Section 13(4) notice.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
DRT declined to review its order by order dated 07.04.2014.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
A second review application seeking review of the order dated 07.04.2014 was also declined by the DRT.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Petitioners approached the DRAT by filing appeal AIR No.462/2015 with a delay of 32 days.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
DRAT held the DRT's findings on the Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) notices were well reasoned and required no interference.¶¶37
Prior proceeding
DRAT held it had no power under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to condone the delay, and dismissed the appeal on merits as well as on limitation.¶¶37

Ajay Kumar Khemka v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Khemka v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Roopa a. T. Vs State of Karnataka

The Managing Director Vs Smt Rathnamma

Smt. Lakshmi. S Vs State of Karnataka

Baby Kushi Dutt Vatsa and Kushi Alias Kushi Darmendra Vatsa Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Managing Director Vs Lavanya S

Bhavana Chandragupta Belagali Vs the State of Karnataka