Dismissed¶¶59

Sri. Abdul Wahab v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2026WP/18845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abdul Wahab v. State Bank of India (Stressed Assets Management Branch), W.P. No.18845 of 2023 (GM-DRT), Karnataka High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti J., 23.04.2026): dismissal of certiorari petition against DRT-II Bengaluru order in TA No.149/2017 decreeing recovery of Rs.69,44,94,879.99/- against borrowers and guarantor; denial of opportunity to cross-examine bank official held to be delay tactics; speedy recovery purpose of tribunals; liberty to invoke Section 18 SARFAESI remedy before DRAT refused. Keywords: personal guarantor, NPA, OTS, MOU, reopen and recall, cross-examination, DRT/DRAT.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed and all I.As. in the writ petition stand closed. ¶¶59

Sri. Abdul Wahab Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed and all I.As. in the writ petition stand closed.

¶¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.06.2023 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Bengaluru in TA No.149/2017 should be set aside and the petitioner/guarantor permitted, by reopening the case, to cross-examine the officer of the bank. +1 more

¶¶53

Court's answer

The application filed along with an affidavit before the Tribunal seeking reopen and re-call did not disclose any reason why the petitioner wanted to cross-examine the bank and, on its face, appeared to be nothing but delay tactics on the part of the petitioner.

¶¶53

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to grant the petitioner liberty to approach the DRAT, since the matter had been pending before the High Court for the last three years.

¶¶57

Key takeaways

Tribunals are constituted so that debts due to banks and financial institutions are recovered in a speedy manner, and the manner in which this case proceeded showed that purpose was not achieved.obiter¶¶53
Having perused the impugned order and the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Court held that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal is a well-considered one requiring no interference.ratio¶¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — order dated 07.06.2023 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Bengaluru in TA No.149/2017 allowing the bank's application for joint recovery of Rs.69,44,94,879.99/- from defendant Nos.1 to 4, including the petitioner as personal guarantor — petitioner sought to reopen the case and recall the bank's officer for cross-examination by application filed 21.04.2023; the application disclosed no reason for seeking cross-examination and, on its face, appeared to be delay tactics — HELD, the DRT order is a well-considered one requiring no interference; liberty to approach the DRAT under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act declined as the matter had been pending before the High Court for three years — writ petition dismissed; all I.As. closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18845 OF 2023 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. ABDUL WAHAB,

¶10

S/O. LATE SRI. HUSSAIN PEERAN, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

¶11

APARTMENT NO.1-A, 1^ST FLOOR, THE COLONNADE APARTMENT,

¶12

NO.22, BENSON TOWN "A" CROSS ROAD,

¶13

BENSON TOWN,

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BENGALURU - 560046.

¶16

(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶17

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVAN. V, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, NO.61, 4^TH FLOOR, RESIDENCY PLAZA RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT

¶23

GENERAL MANAGER.

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANT PATIL. K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II BENGALURU IN TA NO. 149/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶28

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶35

prayer:

¶36

"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

¶37

(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing/setting aside the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Bengaluru in TA No.149/2017 (Annexure-A).

¶38

(b) Issue such other orders or writs or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity."

¶39

The facts of the case are that the company has availed the loan from the respondent/bank and the petitioner is the personal guarantor for the said amount. The outstanding amount to the bank as on 07.09.2011 was Rs.41.15 Crores after the account of the company became NPA in the month of August 2011. It is stated that on 26.07.2012, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent/bank. On 30.09.2013, the bank has recovered an amount of Rs.1 Crore plus accrued interest of Rs.27,86,696/-. The company has executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 21.01.2014 to dispose of the properties including plant and machinery of the company. The purpose of MOU was that the

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

payments that were to be received by the company were to be repaid to respondent/bank as well as other sundry and unsecured creditors by reconciling the accounts. In spite of the request made by the company for additional time for repaying the debts, the respondent/bank pressurized the company to clear the dues at the earliest. The company had also sought for amicable settlement under One time settlement (OTS) vide email dated 10.06.2015. However, the respondent/bank had refused the same. The bank had initiated the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.06.2023, the DRT had allowed the application filed by the bank and allowed the bank to recover from defendant Nos.1 to 4 jointly an amount of Rs.69,44,94,879.99/-. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2023, when he had filed an application to reopen the case and recall the bank for further cross-examination, the Tribunal without considering the said application, had allowed the TA. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein, who is one of the guarantor is before this Court.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶46

submits that a reasonable opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner/guarantor to cross examine the bank official as they have the personal knowledge pertaining to the case. This application was filed on 21.04.2023. The order impugned came to be passed on 07.06.2023. It is submitted that in respect of the very same proceedings, earlier when the Debt Recovery Tribunal had passed the order in a speedy manner without considering the contentions, the company had filed W.P.Nos.35865/2015 and 35938/2015 and by order dated 19.10.2016, the matters were remanded back to the Tribunal. It is submitted that in the present case, in the interest of justice, the order impugned may be set aside and an opportunity may be given to the guarantor by reopening the case to cross examine the bank. Alternatively, another submission is also made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that against an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, remedy is available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach the DRAT and if the liberty is granted, the petitioner will approach the DRAT.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

There is no representation on behalf of the

¶51

respondents.

¶52

Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The OA was filed in the year 2014 and the TA is numbered as 149/2017. The order is passed in the year 2023. The recovery proceedings

¶53

are initiated in the year 2011 and this writ petition is pending before this Court from the year 2023. The only submission that is made before this Court is that the order under challenge is to be set aside and he may be permitted to cross-examine the officer of the bank. This Court had perused the application that is filed along with the affidavit before the Tribunal seeking reopen and re-call. That application do not disclose any reason, on why he wants to cross examine the bank. On the face of it, it appears that it is nothing but the delay tactics on the part of the petitioner. The whole purpose of constituting Tribunals is that the debts due to banks and financial institutions are recovered in a speedy manner. The manner in which this case is proceeding, it appears that the said purpose is not achieved and that apart, the second submission of going before

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the DRAT, this Court is not inclined to grant such liberty to the petitioner as the matter is pending since last three years before this Court and this Court having perused the order impugned and the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is of the view that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal is a well considered one and requires no interference from this Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶60

ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶61

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶62

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 07.06.2023 in TA No.149/2017 allowing the bank's application and permitting recovery of Rs.69,44,94,879.99/- jointly from defendant Nos.1 to 4, passed allegedly without considering the petitioner's application to reopen the case and recall the bank for further cross-examination.¶¶42
Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Bengaluru · 07.06.2023
Prior proceeding
The company availed a loan from the respondent bank; the petitioner is the personal guarantor for the said amount.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
The company's account became NPA in August 2011; outstanding to the bank as on 07.09.2011 was Rs.41.15 Crores.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
Recovery proceedings were initiated in the year 2011.¶¶52
Prior proceeding
On 26.07.2012 the petitioner paid Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent bank.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
On 30.09.2013 the bank recovered Rs.1 Crore plus accrued interest of Rs.27,86,696/-.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
The company executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.01.2014 to dispose of the properties including plant and machinery of the company, with payments to be repaid to the bank and other creditors.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
The company sought amicable settlement under One Time Settlement vide email dated 10.06.2015; the bank refused.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
The bank initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal; the OA was filed in 2014 and the TA was numbered 149/2017.¶¶52
Prior proceeding
As submitted by counsel, in respect of the same proceedings the company had earlier filed W.P.Nos.35865/2015 and 35938/2015, and by order dated 19.10.2016 the matters were remanded back to the Tribunal.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
In 2023 the petitioner filed an application to reopen the case and recall the bank for further cross-examination; according to the petitioner, the Tribunal allowed the TA without considering the said application.¶¶42
Prior proceeding
The application seeking reopen and re-call was filed on 21.04.2023; the impugned order was passed on 07.06.2023.¶¶46

Sri. Abdul Wahab v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Abdul Wahab v. State Bank of India

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. Vasantha. M. Vs the Dcb Bank

M/S Manappuram Finance Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Francis Norohna Vs Hilda Jonenorohna

Smt Uma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Nadeem Pasha Vs the Authorized Officer

Shailaja R Vs the Authorized Officer