-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.16968 OF 2016(CS-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. D S VEERABHADRAPPA
S/O D.C.VERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
SRI VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD,
HALEPETE, BIRUR,KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K G SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD
BANGALORE 560002
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
RAJYA KAIGARIKA VANEEJYA SAHAKARA
BANK NIYAMITHA
POST BOX NO.485,
NO.11, BULL TEMPLE ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560 004
3. THE MANAGER
KARNATAKA RAJYA KAIGARIKA
VANEEJYA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA
CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548
-2-
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1
SRI G S PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER
DTD:28.07.2017)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE/ORDER PASSED BY R-3 DATED 23.03.2016 AT
ANNEXURE-G TO PETITION BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner's only son Sri D.V.Ravi secured a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the third respondent-Co-operative Bank in the year 2001 for establishing Arecanut Curing Centre, as he was an unemployed Graduate. Since the petitioner's son defaulted in repaying the loan, the third respondent initiated recovery proceedings and in the year 2005, and an award was passed by the Arbitrator. Unfortunately the petitioner's son committed suicide on 10.07.2009 and the entire responsibility of taking care of the son's family is on the shoulders of the senior citizen, the petitioner.
-3-
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent has given some concession in payment of interest in favour of certain other customers of the Bank and therefore the petitioner made a requisition to the third respondent-Bank to extend the same benefit to the petitioner. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to an order dated 12.06.2012 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the case of Sri E.S.Jayanna where a direction was given to the third respondent-Bank to give some concession and to collect the interest at the rate of 8.50% instead of 17.50%. Learned Counsel submits that if such a concession is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner shall immediately repay the entire outstanding loan amount to the third respondent-Bank.
3. Learned Counsel for the third respondent-Bank submits that the authorities are bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and the instructions and guidelines given by the Reserve Bank of India. It is submitted that the Bank authorities are not empowered to use their discretion in the matter of recovery proceedings. The learned -4- Counsel further submits that she has instructions that in the matter of Sri E.S.Jayanna which was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, no such concession was given by the third respondent-Bank. On the other hand, the third respondent had complied with the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.81/2003.
4. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner, the third respondent and perused the petition papers.
5. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the third respondent-Bank, the Bank authorities are not vested with any discretion in the matter of recovery of loan granted to the customers. On the other hand, customers are entitled to take the benefit of one time settlement schemes which would be announced by the appropriate Government.
6. The petitioner is permitted to make appropriate representation seeking concession in terms of any scheme or concession granted to similarly placed customers of the third respondent-Bank. If such representation is made, the third -5- respondent is required to consider the same in accordance with law.
7. With regard to the communication dated 23.03.2016 at Annexure 'G', the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the immovable property belonging to the petitioner was brought for auction on 15.09.2010, since no one came forward to participate in the auction, the third respondent-Bank has got the khata of the property in question transferred in its name. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the action of the third respondent- Bank in getting the khata transferred in its name, is not in accordance with law. The third respondent-Bank has no right to get the khata transferred in its name. It is only when the property is sold in auction that a person who purchases the property could get the khata transferred in his/her name. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the third respondent-Bank to retransfer the khata of the property in question in the name of the person in whose name it was earlier standing.
-6-
8. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
It is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-