Dismissed¶¶42

Sri v. S Ramachandra v M/S Indian Bank

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2025WP/3216/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru; WP No. 3216 of 2021 (GM-DRT); Indian Bank v. borrower V S Ramachandra; DRT Bangalore / DRAT Chennai; Articles 226 & 227 certiorari; debt recovery proceedings since 1990; one-time settlement failed; DRT-determined liability Rs.65,31,628.65 (09.01.2008); contention of non-credit of Rs.10,00,000/- rejected as unsupported by record; no jurisdictional or legal error warranting Article 227 interference; writ petition dismissed on 01-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

The contention that two amounts of Rs.5,00,000/- each (total Rs.10,00,000/-) were not given credit is not based on any record. ¶¶38

Sri v S Ramachandra Vs M/S Indian Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's sole contention — that two amounts of Rs.5,00,000/- each (total Rs.10,00,000/-) were not given credit — was well-founded, and whether the orders of the DRT/DRAT contained an error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶¶37

Court's answer

The contention that two amounts of Rs.5,00,000/- each (total Rs.10,00,000/-) were not given credit is not based on any record.

¶¶38

Ratio / Principle

Neither the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal nor the Debt Recovery Tribunal committed an error of jurisdiction or law warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; consequently the writ petition was dismissed.

¶¶42

Key takeaways

In passing, the Court observed that the writ petition relates to proceedings initiated by the Bank in 1990 which, despite 35 years having elapsed, are yet to be finalized.obiter¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — Sri V S Ramachandra v. M/s Indian Bank and The Recovery Officer, DRT Bangalore (WP No. 3216 of 2021, HC-KAR, decided 01-12-2025; per Justice D K Singh, coram also Justice Umesh M Adiga). Petitioner sought certiorari quashing of the order dated 23.05.2019 of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in RA No.38/2010 (in AOR No.11/2008 on the file of DRT Bangalore), which had dismissed his appeal against the DRT's determination of liability at Rs.65,31,628.65 as on 09.01.2008. Background: pre-1984 loan of Rs.14,80,200/- from Bank of Tanjavur Ltd; suit decreed 19.04.1988; bank merged into Indian Bank in 1990, which as assignee filed O.A. for Rs.50,79,634/-; one-time settlement failed. Sole contention — non-credit of two payments of Rs.5,00,000/- each (total Rs.10,00,000/-) — held not based on any record; no error of jurisdiction or law by DRT/DRAT warranting interference under Article 227; proceedings pending since 1990 noted (35 years). Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49992-DB WP No. 3216 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 3216 OF 2021 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI V S RAMACHANDRA S/O V SAMPANGIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A NO.195, 5TH MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE- 560018

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PREETHAM PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. D PRABHAKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

M/S INDIAN BANK REPRSENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER KORAMANGALA BRANCH NO.51, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE- 560 095

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:49992-DB WP No. 3216 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE RECOVERY OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL KRISHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. YOGEESHA KUMARA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23/05/2019 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNA IN RA NO.38/2010 IN AOR NO.11/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE (ANNEXUREA)., AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:49992-DB WP No. 3216 of 2021

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

The matter has been taken up in the revised call. The respondents are absent in the revised call. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present in the Court. He submits that he was not able to contact his client.

¶31

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 23.05.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Regular Appeal No.38/2010.

¶32

The petitioner had availed loan from Bank of Tanjavur Limited to the tune of Rs.14,80,200/- prior to the year 1984. When the petitioner could not repay the loan, the Bank preferred a suit for recovery of money along with interest, which was decreed on 19.04.1988. As the Bank was on the same premises which was mortgaged for availing loan, the petitioner - landlord was granted six months' time to settle the dues of rent and to clear the other dues of the Bank. In the year 1990, the lending bank merged with the Indian Bank and the Indian Bank

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49992-DB WP No. 3216 of 2021

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

became the assignee of the loan amount outstanding against the petitioner. The assignee Bank preferred O.A. before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.50,79,634/-.

¶36

During the pendency of the O.A., the petitioner approached the Bank for one-time settlement. However, the one-time settlement could not be reached as the Bank proceeded with recovery proceedings. The Debt Recovery Tribunal determined the liability as on 09.01.2008 to the tune of Rs.65,31,628.65.

¶37

Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which came to be dismissed by the impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 23.05.2019. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the two amounts of Rs.5,00,000/- each, total Rs.10,00,000/- have not been given credit thereto.

¶38

We have perused the impugned order. We do not think that such a contention is based on any record. We

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49992-DB WP No. 3216 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

may note that the present writ petition is in respect of the proceedings which were initiated by the Bank way back in the year 1990 and despite 35 years having been gone, the proceedings are yet to be finalized.

¶42

We have perused the impugned order. We do not find that either the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal or the Debt Recovery Tribunal had committed an error of jurisdiction of law which would warrant an interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal.

¶43

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri v. S Ramachandra v M/S Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. S Ramachandra v M/S Indian Bank

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

The Management of Vs Sri D Manikya

The Bangalore Employees and Self-Employees Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs Dr. Pallavi Panchu

Sri.Govardhan Reddy Vs State of Karnataka