M/S. Benaka Brick Works Vs Bank of Baroda

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, OF MANDAMUS ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2025 IN AIR 1861/2024 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶26

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶27

This writ petition has been filed seeking the

¶28

following reliefs:

¶29

a. Issue a writ, of mandamus order or direction to the 1^st respondent bank and quash the order dated 19.06.2025 in AIR 1861/2024 which is produced and marked as Annexure - C.

¶30

b. Pass any other order of consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31247-DB WP No. 20995 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

From the available records, it appears that the petitioner had challenged the auction conducted by the respondent - Bank on 31.08.2009 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by means of filing SA.No.511/2009 purportedly under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002¹ , which came to be dismissed. Against that order, the petitioner filed MA.No.10/2020 that is to say after a period of nearly 11 years seeking the following relief :

¶34

" Holding that the applicant is entitled to receive Rs.2,37,50,000/- together with interest at such rate as Tribunal deems fit and costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity".

¶35

It is pertinent to mention here that the

¶36

memorandum of appeal of MA.No.10/2020 has not been filed. By means of a detailed order dated 30.10.2024, after

¶37

noticing that the aspect relating to auction has attained finality and that the MA was filed in gross abuse of process

¶38

1 SARFAESI Act

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31247-DB WP No. 20995 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

of Court, it was dismissed. It appears that against the order passed in MA.No.10/2020, an appeal was filed by the petitioner, which is enclosed as Annexure - D, which came to be numbered as AIR 1861/2024. In this appeal of 2024,

¶42

setting aside of the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 30.10.2024 was sought along with the prayer to hold the applicant therein entitled to receive Rs.2,37,50,000/with interest @ 15.50%. In the aforesaid appeal, the order impugned of 19.06.2025 was passed directing pre-deposit of an amount of Rs.20,13,885/-. It was observed in the order that the amount of pre-deposit may be paid in two installments, the second installment being paid on or before 14.08.2025, failing which the appeal would stand rejected. Against that order, the instant petition has been filed.

¶43

From the record it appears that against the

¶44

auction notice dated 28.07.2009, that was issued by the respondent - Bank, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11536/2012

¶45

and against public notice for auction sale of another property dated 01.10.2011 and a demand notice dated

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:31247-DB WP No. 20995 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

03.10.2011, W.P.No.11595/2012 was filed. In the

¶50

judgment dated 17.07.2012 passed by this Court in the aforementioned two writ petitions, the Court noted that during the pendency of the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Writ Petitions were filed time and again by the petitioner, which the Court observed, was nothing but abuse of the process of Court having regard to the earlier proceedings. The Court found that the petitioner had been making efforts to stall the auction proceedings and those petitions of 2012 were more such petitions seeking quashing of sale of suit schedule properties. The Court observed that there was no ground to take lenient view in

¶51

favour of the petitioner as she was given number of opportunities by the Court. It was noted that the petitioner had approached Debt Recovery Tribunal as well as the High Court repeatedly, but failed. However, it was noted that auction having already taken place and sale certificate already issued in favour of auction purchaser, the decree was satisfied and the excess amount of Rs.21,72,215/-

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31247-DB WP No. 20995 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

was still lying with the Bank and the same was directed to

¶55

be disbursed in favour of the petitioner. The Court recorded that the Court was satisfied about the validity of auction proceedings and therefore no interference was called for, more particularly having regard to the earlier proceedings. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.

¶56

It appears from perusal of the order passed on 30.10.2024 in MA.No.10/2020 that the several cases filed by the petitioner from time to time were noticed by the Tribunal and it was held that the MA was filed which in a way was challenging the sale of movable and immovable properties by the applicants held in 2011, which had stood the scrutiny of all the Courts including the Apex Court. It was held that the filing of MA was nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, it was dismissed. There upon the case AIR 1861/2024 was filed by the petitioner in which the impugned order has been passed.

¶57

It is pertinent to mention here that the SARFAESI Act provides for an appeal under Section 18

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:31247-DB WP No. 20995 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

thereof, by any person aggrieved by an order made under the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides for an application to be made before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by any aggrieved person including the borrower in respect of measures referred to in Sub-Section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or its authorized officer. The limitation provided under Section 17 is a period of 45 days from the date of which such measures had been taken. There is no provision under the SARFAESI Act for filing of Miscellaneous Appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court posed a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate the provision under which the MA.No.10/2020 was filed. However, he failed to do so.

¶62

As noticed above, the challenge to the auction held in the year 2009 stood settled by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in SA.No.511/2009, which came to be dismissed. Therefore, despite the fact that the Debt Recovery Tribunal actually adjudicated the MA.No.10/2020, we find that it had

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:31247-DB WP No. 20995 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

no jurisdiction to do. In any view of the matter, the MA.No.10/2020 stood dismissed by the order of

¶66

30.10.2024.

¶67

Even thereafter, the petitioner continued in its

¶68

journey of unmitigated abuse of the process of court by preferring an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai by filing the aforesaid AIR 1861/2024 against the aforesaid order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 30.10.2024. We are constrained to observe that even the appeal is not maintainable.

¶69

What the petitioner did in filing the MA.No.10/2020 was to seek review of a very old matter that was settled by the Debt Recovery Tribunal itself in SA.No.511/2009, which had attained finality. Thus, we find

¶70

that the petitioner has been time and again approaching this Court and in various forms seeking to agitate a claim that it does not have. This in our opinion is a gross abuse of the process of Court.

¶71

9 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:31247-DB WP No. 20995 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

This petition is therefore dismissed with cost of

¶75

Rs.1,00,000/-, which shall be deposited in the account of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru within a period of one month from today. Failing to deposit the amount would entail its recovery by the Registrar General as per the rules.

¶76

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶77

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶78

AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

M/S. Benaka Brick Works v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Benaka Brick Works v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Methuku Srinivas Vs Total Solutions Intec Pvt. Ltd.

Basavarajappa Vs Gangadharappa

Smt Suhasini Basavaraj Halagali Vs Basavaraja Hanumanth Halagali

Smt M Ashwini Vs Sri S Ananthkumar

Mr. Srinivas Manne Parayya Vs Mr. Sreenivas Babu T G

Karnataka Telecom Deparatment Employees Co. Operative Society Vs Smt Rachitha Chetan