Dismissed¶47

M/S Avva Developers v. the Housing and Urban Development

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025WP/24022/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), Justice Suraj Govindaraj, order dated 10.06.2025 in WP No. 24022 of 2021 (GM-DRT), Avva Developers v. HUDCO & DRT Registrar. Keywords: writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal rejected by communication dated 19.03.2025; DRT O.A.No.119/2011 order dated 18.08.2015; interest rate 13.2% p.a. vs 6% p.a.; Section 34 CPC; liberty reserved to challenge rejection.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to agitate any grievance in appropriate proceedings (including, per the accepted memo, liberty to challenge the communication dated 19.03.2025 rejecting the OTS proposal). ¶47

M/S Avva Developers Vs the Housing and Urban… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19742 WP No. 24022 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 24022 OF 2021 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S AVVA DEVELOPERS NO.424, EMBASSY HERITAGE, 8^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, C. MAHESH KUMAR, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.H.C. SHIVARAMU., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HUDCO) REGIONAL OFFICE AT MANIPAL CENTER, 7^TH FLOOR, UNIT 703 & 704, NORTH BLOCK, NO.47, DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE-560042. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶16

THE SECRETARY/REGISTRAR THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:19742 WP No. 24022 of 2021

HC-KAR

RESIDENCY ROAD,

BANGALORE-560025.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VARADARAJ R HAVALDAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF HONBLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (DRT) IN O.A NO. 119/2011 AND DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER REPRESENTATIONS DATED 20.01.2020, 09.10.2020 AND 02.03.2021 AT ANNEXURE-E1 TO E3 RESPECTIVELY, FOR SETTLEMENT OF LOAN ACCOUNT UNDER 'ONE TIME SETTLEMENT' SCHEME AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶29

following reliefs:

¶30

a) Call for the entire records on the file of Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in O.A.No.119/2011;

¶31

b) To issue Writ of mandamus or Direction against the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner representations dated 20.01.2020, 09.10.2020 and 02.03.2021 at ANNEXURE-E1 to E3 respectively, for settlement of loan account under 'One Time Settlement' Scheme;

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19742 WP No. 24022 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

c) To Modify the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Bangalore in O.A.No.119/2011 dated 18.08.2015 at ANNEXURE-A in respect of the rate of interest payable by the petitioner firm from 13.2% p.a. to 6% p.a., with simple interest as per provisions of Section 34 of CPC;

¶35

d) Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶36

A Memo dated 09.06.2025 has been filed signed by

¶37

the learned counsel for the petitioner, which reads as follows:

¶38

“ MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL

¶39

"The Petitioner, by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits as follows:

¶40

That the present writ petition was filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representation submitted by the Petitioner pertaining to a One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal. That during the pendency of the above writ petition, the Respondent Bank has considered the said representation and has issued a communication rejecting the OTS proposal submitted by the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid development, the cause of action for filing the present writ petition no longer survives and the same has been rendered infructuous. The Petitioner, however, reserves the right to challenge the subsequent communication dated 19.03.2025 issued by the Respondent Bank rejecting the Petitioner's representation, in accordance with law.

¶41

In the light of the above, the Petitioner respectfully seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the present writ petition, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings challenging the aforementioned subsequent communication. It is,

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:19742 WP No. 24022 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the above writ petition as having become infructuous, with liberty as prayed for above, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶46

Accepting the said Memo and submission of Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned Counsel for the petitioner,

¶47

the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate any of the grievance that the petitioner may have in appropriate proceedings.

¶48

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶49

DL CT:JL

M/S Avva Developers v. the Housing and Urban Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Avva Developers v. the Housing and Urban Development

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

Smt Parvathamma Vs the District Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

M/S. Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal

Sri. K.M. Nanjundaiah Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Mr D M Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt S Mahalakshmi Vs the Territory Manager-Retail

Suresh v Vs State by Mahadevapura P.S