Sri. D S Veerabhadrappa vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 387 Kant

                          -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.

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

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

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.

8. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of in

the above terms.

It is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JT/-