Karnataka High Court

Mr. Kodandaramu R vs The Janatha Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 4 December, 2023

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2023:KHC:43710
                                                            WP No. 19381 of 2021




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                                BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 19381 OF 2021 (GM-DRT)
                      BETWEEN:

                      MR. KODANDARAMU R.,
                      S/O LATE RANGAPPA
                      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                      2ND PHASE, 40 FEET ROAD
                      MANJUNATHANAGARA
                      BENGALURU - 560 010.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. RAMESHA H.E., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    THE JANATHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
                            NO.156, 8TH MAIN ROAD
                            17TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM WEST
Digitally signed by         BENGALURU - 560 055.
PADMAVATHI B K              REPRESENTED BY
Location: HIGH              THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                      2.    SRI RAMACHANDRA B.H.,
                            S/O LATE SRI RANGANNA
                            AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
                            NO. 1394/1, 2ND MAIN
                            NARAYANA LAYOUT, BEHIND WIDIA
                            NEAR POORNA PRAGNA SCHOOL
                                  -2-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:43710
                                            WP No. 19381 of 2021




    NAGASANDRA METRO
    BENGALURU - 560 073.

    RESPONDENT NO.2 AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
    19.07.2023
                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN R.M., ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
    SRI. SAILESH S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DIARY NO.922/2021 DATED 03.9.2021
PASSED BY DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE-E

    THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order

dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in

under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act,

2002.

2. Heard Sri Ramesha H E, learned counsel appearing for

petitioner, Sri. Mallikarjun.R.M., learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1 and Sri Sailesh.S.K, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.2.

NC: 2023:KHC:43710

3. The co-ordinate bench of this Court, on the averments

made in the petition, entertaining the petition had granted an

interim order dated 28.10.2021 which read as follows:

"Issue emergent notice to the sole respondent.

Interim order as prayed for till next date of hearing, subject to petitioner depositing with the respondent - Bank a sum of Rs25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakh) only as under:

i) a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh) only within two weeks;

ii) another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh) only, within next two weeks; and,

iii) the remainder Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh) only within one week next following thereafter;

failing which, not only the interim order stands rescinded but the writ petition also may be rejected with some forfeiture of the amount.

No equity shall be pleaded by either of the parties based on this interim arrangement."

4. This order was not complied with and every time the

interim order was extended on the plea of the petitioner that he

would comply with the order. The order dated 02.12.2021 read

as follows:

"Counsel for the petitioner supported by affidavit of his client submits that despite the interim order granted by this court on 28.10.2021, the respondent-bank is not willing to accept the tender of payment made in terms

NC: 2023:KHC:43710

thereof.

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount comprised in the subject order in the Registry of this Court within one week failing which interim protection stands rescinded on its own.

Call this matter on 10.12.2021 to ascertain whether this order is complied."

5. Later on 10.12.2021, the co-ordinate bench of this

Court has passed the following order:

"Though one extension was granted, the payment could not be made because of some health problem coupled with the financial difficulty, says petitioner counsel. Petitioner undertakes to make the payment, if a period of ten days is granted. Thus, a Case is made out for granting extension and accordingly, time is granted, other riders having been kept intact. Petitioner shall not seek any further extension."

6. On 15.12.2022, as there was blatant breach of the

interim order passed, this Court has vacated the interim order

so granted, by permitting the petitioner to seek restoration of

the same. The order reads as follows:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that office objections have been complied with.

Office to verify the same.

This Court on 28.10.2021 passed the following order:

"Issue emergent notice to the sole respondent.

NC: 2023:KHC:43710

Interim order as prayed for till next date of hearing, subject to petitioner depositing with the respondent

- Bank a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakh) only as under:

i) a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh) only within two weeks;

ii) another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh) only, within next two weeks; and,

iii) the remainder Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh) only within one week next following thereafter;

failing which, not only the interim order stands rescinded but the writ petition also may be rejected with some forfeiture of the amount.

No equity shall be pleaded by either of the parties based on this interim arrangement."

On 02.12.2021, time was sought to make deposit even then, it was not made. On 10.12.2021, owing to certain medical problems, this Court again granted a week's time. Despite the order dated 28.10.2021, i.e. after a passage of 14 months, the same has not been complied with.

Therefore, if the petitioner wants restoration of the interim order he has to make payment and then seek.

Interim order earlier granted stands vacated reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek restoration of the same. The Bank is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

List this matter after winter vacation-2022."

7. Later, the petitioner sought to make certain payments

through demand drafts, which has resulted in an order dated

29.12.2022, which reads as follows:

NC: 2023:KHC:43710

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits to this Court that in terms of the order dated 15.12.2022, he is will to deposit balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- under the following Demand Drafts.

1. 26/12/2022 DD No.409069 Rs. 3,50,000=00 - SBI

2. 26/12/2022 DD No.052548 Rs. 50,000-00 - Bank of India

3. 12/12/2022 DD No.052511 Rs. 2,00,000=00 Bank of India

4. 01/12/2022 DD No.269161 Rs. 3,00,000=00 - Bank of Baroda

5. 27/12/2022 DD No.002452 Rs. 3,00,000=00 - HDFC

6. 27/12/2022 DD No.002453 Rs. 3,00,000=00 - HDFC

An application is filed seeking extension of the interim order. Though this Court would find that the petitioner has failed to deposit amount as contemplated under Order 15.12.2022, however, having regard to the valuable rights of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in depositing the said amount.

Therefore, the interim order granted earlier is extended till next date of hearing.

I.A.Nos.3/2022 and 4/2022 are disposed of accordingly."

8. By the time the petitioner complied with the order

dated 29.12.2022, several developments had already taken

place. First is that the property had been sold in a public

auction and the auction purchaser had remitted the entire

amount and confirmation of sale and sale certificate were also

NC: 2023:KHC:43710

made in favour of the auction purchaser on 09.06.2021, this

was an event that was long before the filing of the earlier writ

petition. This fact is not divulged in the petition. But the

defence is that the petitioner was not aware of the same. Be