Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha H. C vs The Karnataka Bank Limited on 29 November, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43250
WP No. 26282 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 26282 OF 2023 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA H.C,
S/O LATE H.N. CHANDRE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT HALEHALLI ESTATE,
B. HOSAHALLI POST, MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 132.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOPALA H.M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,
A BANKING COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
Digitally signed by THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913,
PADMAVATHI B K HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HEAD OFFICE AT KANKANADY,
KARNATAKA MANGALURU, AND ONE OF ITS
BRANCH SITUATE AT BANAKAL,
MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, BRANCH MANAGER,
PIN: 577 122
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A. GANESH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43250
WP No. 26282 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 27.06.2023, PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL-1, BENGALURU, POSTING THE CASE IN ORIGINAL
APPLICATION (O.A) NO.245/2014, FOR FINAL ORDER
WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
AS I.ANO.2428/2016, WHICH IS FILED U/S 22(2) OF THE
SECURDISATION ACT, READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DATED 07.06.2016 ANNEXURE-H,
SEEKING PERMISSION TO CROSS EXAMINE THE BANK
WITNESS (PW-1) VIDE ANNEXURE-K, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE SAME AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Gopala H.M., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri. A. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
an order dated 27.06.2023 on the specious plea that his
interlocutory application filed in the year 2016 i.e. on
07.06.2016 is pending consideration at the hands of the DRT
and notwithstanding the same, the matter is set for its
judgment. The order that is called in question reads as follows:
NC: 2023:KHC:43250
"27-06-2023. 27-06-2023.
For arguments. Both the counsels are present.
Pass over II round, both the
counsels are present. Heard
arguments and submissions of
both the counsels. For orders
30/11/2023.
In the meantime, liberty is
granted to file their written
arguments/objections if any,
within two weeks time."
The order is both the counsels present, heard arguments,
for orders on 30.11.2023 and in the meantime, liberty is
granted to file written arguments.
3. The petitioner cannot be imagined to be aggrieved
by the said order. Insofar as the application that he has filed in
the year 2016 i.e. on 07.06.2016, the proceedings have gone
on before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for close to seven years,
after filing the application and the petitioner has not vented out
any grievance of non consideration of the application, at any
point in time between the date of filing or till the passage of the
order dated 27.06.2023. Now knocking at the doors of this
Court on an imaginary ground or imaginary grievance is
wanting to get the proceedings before the Debt Recovery
NC: 2023:KHC:43250
Tribunal stalled or the Debt Recovery Tribunal being stopped
from rendering its judgment.
4. The petition is on the face of it is an abuse of the
process of the law. The Court is holding its hands in not
imposing any cost upon the petitioner for the reason that he is
a borrower, who has suffered enough for having borrowed and
not paid, with several proceedings.
The writ petition is thus dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JY
CT: BHK
