Smt Priyadarshini Iyer S V vs The Authorised Officer The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4813 Kant

                           -1-



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                    BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

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

                           AND

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

        WRIT APPEAL No.265/2022 (GM-RES)

 BETWEEN:

 SMT.PRIYADARSHINI IYER S.V.
 AGED AROUND 50 YEARS
 W/O SHRI SOUMYA ANURAG
 RESIDING AT NO. 1010
 7TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
 BEML LAYOUT,
 BENGALURU - 560 098
                                         ... APPELLANT
 (BY SRI S.VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
     SRI B.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

 AND:

 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
 THE BENGALURU CITY
 CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
 NO 03, 1ST FLOOR,
 PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD
 CHAMARAJPET
 BENGALURU - 560 018
                                       ... RESPONDENT
 (BY SRI K.V.LOKESH, ADVOCATE)
                          ---
      THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH
 COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED
 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.4514/2022,
 DATED 07.03.2022 TO THE EXTENT IT HAS REFUSED TO
                             -2-



GRANT A MANDAMUS IN TERMS OF ANNEXURE-A AND SUCH
OTHER ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE.

     THIS WA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS                       DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:



                         JUDGMENT

Sri.K.V.Lokesh, learned counsel accepts notice on

behalf of respondent - Bank.

2. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the

impugned order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4514/2022, whereby

the learned Single Judge dismissed the aforesaid

petition filed by the appellant - writ petitioner.

3. Heard Sri.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned

counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank.

4. In addition to reiterating the various

contentions urged in the appeal and referring to the

material on record including the impugned order,

learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that

in addition to several other errors and mistakes, the

learned Single Judge failed to consider and appreciate

that the respondent - Bank was guilty of fraud in

suppressing the earlier proceedings before the learned

Magistrate who passed the order dated 16.02.2022,

which was impugned in the writ petition and

consequently, the said order passed by the learned

Magistrate deserves to be quashed. It is also submitted

that the impugned order dated 16.02.2022 is illegal,

arbitrary and opposed to law as well as the material on

record and failure on the part of the learned Single

Judge to appreciate this has resulted in erroneous

conclusion warranting interference by this Court in the

present appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

- Bank opposes the various contentions urged in the

appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge has

correctly considered and appreciated the entire material

on record and there is no merit in the appeal which is

liable to be dismissed.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the

rival submissions and perused the material on record.

7. Though several contentions have been urged by

the appellant - writ petitioner in the present appeal as

well as in the writ petition, having regard to the

availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy

against the impugned order dated 16.02.2022 by way of

an appeal / application under Section 17 of the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for

short 'the SARFAESI Act'), without expressing any

opinion on the merits / demerits of any of the rival

claims, we deem it just and appropriate to dispose of

this appeal without interfering with the impugned order

passed by the learned Single Judge and by reserving

liberty in favour of the appellant - writ petitioner to take

recourse to such remedies as available in law including

filing / preferring an appropriate appeal / application

under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the

jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal within a period of

fifteen days from today.

7.1 It is further directed that in the event the

appellant files such an appeal / application, the

jurisdictional DRT / appellate authority shall consider

the same without being influenced by the observations

and findings recorded in the impugned order dated

16.02.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.5832/2021 by the

learned Magistrate as well as the impugned order dated

07.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.4514/2022 referred to

supra.

7.2 It is further directed that the respondent -

Bank shall also not take any precipitative / coercive

steps against the appellant pursuant to the aforesaid

impugned orders for a period of fifteen days from today.

8. Subject to the aforesaid directions and liberty

reserved in favour of the appellant, the appeal stands

disposed of.

SD/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

JUDGE Srl.