Karnataka Bank Ltd vs M/S Meridian Exports Pvt Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 2144 Kant

                         -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                     PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

       WRIT APPEAL NO.116 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,
ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
FIRST FLOOR, FKCCI BUILDING,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
MR RAJARAM P N
                                       ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.S.S.NAGANAND, SR.ADV. FOR
    SMT.SUMANA NAGANAD, ADV.)

AND:

1.     M/S MERIDIAN EXPORTS PVT LTD
       HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
       AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
       NO.31, OPP MICO BOSH FACTORY,
       GATE NO.2, MARBLE MARKET,
       BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560030
       REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS
       MR S.KISHORE AND MRS SRILAKSHMI KISHORE

2.     MR S KISHORE
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
       S/O SRI S.SATHYANARAYANA
                                -2-


3.   MRS SRILAKSHMI KISHORE
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
     W/O SRI S.KISHORE,
     NO.504, 6TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
     S.T.ROAD, KORAMANGALA,
     BENGALURU-560034.
                                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.M.A.RAJENDRA, ADV. FOR C/R1)
                               ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.1102/2022 (GM-RES)
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed

challenging the impugned judgment and order dated

31.01.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.1102/2022, whereby the writ petition has been

disposed of with a direction to the appellant/respondent to

act upon One Time Settlement (OTS) and the offer of

Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy lakhs) by the

respondents/petitioners in the form of first installment

under OTS shall be accepted by the Bank and that subject

property shall be given back to the possession of the

petitioners only on such payment being made. It was also

directed that the respondents/petitioners shall pay the

remainder of the money i.e., Rs.2,05,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Crore & Five lakhs) on or before 25.03.2022, failing which,

the Bank can take back the possession of the property by

using Police force.

3. It was the case of the respondents/petitioners

before the writ Court that SARFAESI proceedings were

coercively initiated by the appellant/Bank for recovery of

the amount due and the Bank has extended OTS facility

under which the respondents/petitioners have to pay

Rs.70,00,00/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs) on or before

09.02.2022 and the remainder i.e., Rs.2,05,00,000/-

(Rupees Two Crore & Five Lakhs) on or before 25.03.2022.

It was argued by the respondents/petitioners before the

writ Court that the period may be extended by six months

for the payment of remaining amount as the OTS proposal

has been accepted.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

appellant submits that the order passed by the writ Court is

wrong and illegal as the writ petition itself is not

maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of The Authorised Officer,

Karnataka Bank vs. Rajeshwari B Shetty and others

vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2021 in

W.A.No.1305/2021. It has been submitted that the Division

Bench has held that the writ petition in such given

circumstances where the petitioner has approached the

Court after initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is not

maintainable. The facts of the present case are identical to

the one cited supra. It is also submitted that vide judgment

and order dated 08.12.2021 passed in W.A.No.1235/2021

[Kotak Mahindra Bank vs. Gopal Kamath and Co. and

others], it has been categorically held that it was

incumbent upon the respondents/petitioners to have moved

appropriate application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal

(DRT) on the grounds based on the benefits applicable to

them as per the Credit Guarantee Scheme. It was for the

DRT to have considered the said application and pass

appropriate orders. The respondents/petitioners on their

own could not have presumed that the relief claimed before

the writ Court could not have been granted by the DRT and

therefore, filed the said writ petition. It has been held the

writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be

dismissed.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

appellant submits that it has been the consistent view of

the Apex Court that High Courts should not entertain a writ

petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, if

alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases

falling within the well-defined exceptions. It has also been

held consistently that High Courts shall not interfere in

matters which are cognizable by DRT or DRAT.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the

other hand tries to submit that there is violation of the

principles of natural justice as the appellant/Bank has

arbitrarily declared the Bank Account of the

respondents/petitioners as Non Performing Assets (NPA)

and had taken coercive measures under SARFAESI Act to

recover the alleged standing amount.

7. We have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned

counsel for the respondents and gone through the record.

8. We are of the considered view that the issues

involved in the present appeal are squarely covered by the

judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases

The Authorised Officer, Karnataka Bank and Kotak

Mahindra Bank (supra).

9. As such, we are of the considered view that the

writ petition in the given facts and circumstances was not

maintainable.

10. In view of the above, the writ appeal is

disposed of. The order impugned is set aside. Writ petition

is dismissed. However, with a liberty to the

respondents/petitioners to avail the statutory alternative

remedy before the appropriate forum as provided under

SARFAESI Act.

The pending interlocutory applications stand disposed

of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

VM