Karnataka High Court
Hafeez Shamsul Huda vs M/S. Asset Reconstruction on 15 November, 2023
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:40564
RFA No. 918 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2013 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. HAFEEZ SHAMSUL HUDA
S/O. LATE ABUL FIAZ
AGED 60 YEARS
R/AT NO 18, EIDGAH COMPLEX,
TANNERY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 045.
2. MUBASHEER AHMED KHAN
S/O. BASHEER AHMED KHAN
AGED 39 YEARS
R/AT NO 78, MOORE ROAD
FRAZER TOWN
BANGALORE-560 005.
Digitally signed 3. MOHAMMED IKRAMULLAH SUHAIL
by SHARANYA T
S/O. A.M. OBAIDULLAH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED 38 YEARS
KARNATAKA R/AT NO 1079, 3RD BLOCK
I STAGE, HBR LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 043
REP. BY PA HOLDER
MOHAMMED SALMAAN.
4. MOHAMMED SALMAAN
S/O. A.M. OBAIDULLAH
AGED 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.1079
3RD BLOCK, I STAGE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:40564
RFA No. 918 of 2013
HBR LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 043.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI NOOR MOHAMMED, ADVOCATE FOR A1;
SRI M.D. RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR A2;
SRI SREEVATSA ASSTS., ADVOCATE FOR A3 & A4;
V/O. DATED 14.09.2022, APPEAL AGAINST
A2 TO A4 DISMISSED)
AND:
1. M/S. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION
COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT "THE RUBY", 10TH FLOOR
NO.29, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG
DADAR (WEST), MUMBAI-400 028
ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS
TRUSTEE OF ARCIL-ESTEEM
ESTATE PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.
TRUST, REPRESENTED HEREIN
BY ITS MANAGER
SRI RAJIV LOCHAN CHANDAK.
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 07.04.2017
2. M/S. ESTEEM ESTATE PROJECTS (P) LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.73
M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
HABIBI KALWANI.
3. MRS. NAZMA PANJWANI
W/O. FEROZ PANJWANI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:40564
RFA No. 918 of 2013
R/AT FLAT NO 103,
KHAJANA APARTMENTS
CHIRAGALI LANE, ABIDS
HYDERABAD-500 103.
4. MR. SHAMSUDDIN PANJWANI
S/O. SULTANALI VALIMOHAMMED
PANJWANI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5. MRS. AMINALI PANJWANI
S/O. AKBARALI PANJWANI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
6. MRS. ZOHRA PANJWANI
W/O. KARIM PANJWANI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R3 TO R6 ARE RESIDENTS OF
FLAT NO.103
KHAJANA APARTMENTS
CHIRAGALI LANE, ABIDS
HYDERABAD-500 103.
7. MOHAMED NASEERUDDIN
S/O. LATE ALEEMUDDIN
AGED 56 YEARS
8. MRS. REHANA BEGUM
W/O. MOHAMED NASEERUDDIN
AGED 47 YEARS
R7 AND R8 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.16, 5TH CROSS
KEMPAIAH BLOCK
J.C. NAGAR
BANGALORE.
9. SYED NAJMUDDIN
S/O. LATE SYED ISMAIL
AGED 65 YEARS
AT NO 1357, BUDIKOTE ROAD
BANGARPET.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:40564
RFA No. 918 of 2013
10. SHABEIR AHMED
S/O. LATE T.S. ABDUL KHUDDUS
AGED 54 YEARS
11. MRS. JABEEN BEGUM
W/O. SHABEIR AHMED
AGED 45 YEARS
R10 & R11 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.11/1, STEPHENS ROAD
FRAZER TOWN
BANGALORE.
12. HASHIM ALI
S/O. NAZAR ALI
AGED 55 YEAS
R/AT NO. A-21
KARIMBAGH COLONY
CHIRAGALI LANE, ABIDS
HYDERABAD-500 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JANEKERE C. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI S.V. VADAVADAGI BY M/S. JADHAV LAW ASSTS.,
ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6;
SRI N. KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R11;
R2 SERVED;
V/O. DATED 30.10.2023, APPEAL AGAINST R12 IS DISMISSED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.5.2012 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.25250/2011 ON THE FILE OF XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE
APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7, RULE 11(d) CPC FOR
DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:40564
RFA No. 918 of 2013
JUDGMENT
None present on behalf of the appellants. Paper
books are not filed.
2. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, the
plaint came to be rejected filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d)
CPC by the defendant No.12-Bank/Financial Institution,
whereby the maintainability of the suit was called in
question. Impugned order reveals that defendant No.12
has proceeded against the appellants for realization of
their dues under Section 17 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for short) before
the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. In view of clear
bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the learned
Trial Judge has rightly rejected the plaint.
3. Since, the appeal against the second appellant
has already stood dismissed and there is no representation
on behalf of the first appellant, no useful purpose would be
NC: 2023:KHC:40564
RFA No. 918 of 2013
served by adjourning the matter as the appeal is of the
year 2013.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
