M/S Skl Hotels Private Limited vs The Authorized Officer State Bank ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6411 Kant

                                         -1-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC:32505-DB
                                                   WA No. 173 of 2023



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                      PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                                        AND

                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

                      WRIT APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2023 (GM-DRT)

             BETWEEN:

             1.    M/S SKL HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,
                   SY NO.103, NH-7, JALA HOBLI,
                   KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ROAD,
                   BANGALORE,
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
                   SRI. S RAMESH

             2.    MR. S RAMESH
                   S/O MR SUGUNAMAL,
                   NO.697/15, 42ND CROSS,
                   3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
Digitally          BANGALORE-560 010.
signed by
SHARADA
VANI B                                                  ...APPELLANTS
Location:    (BY SRI. NANJUNDAPPA A S.,ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA    AND:

             1.    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA
                   STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
                   2ND FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING,
                   LOCAL HEAD OFFICE COMPOUND,
                   NO.65,ST. MARKS ROAD,
                   BENGALURU-560 001.
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:32505-DB
                                        WA No. 173 of 2023



2.   TWENTY FOURTEEN HOTELS INDIA PVT LTD
     REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
     MR MATHEWLDIKULLA VILAYIL,
     XII/971, Y TOWER, M.K.K NAIR ROAD,
     VAZHAKALLA P.O. KAKKANAD,
     KOCHI-682 030. KERALA STATE.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ERRONEOUS ORDERS DATED 15.12.22, PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, AFTER 5 YEAR OF FILING WRIT
PETITION NO.55896-97/2017, ON MAINTAINABILITY, WHEN
THE MAINTAINABILITY WAS DECIDED ON THE 1ST DAY OF
HEARING OF THE WRIT PETITION ON 15-12-17, IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCE AND GROUNDS URGED IN THE WRIT
PETIETION AND IAS AND FURTEHR AS THE ORDERS ARE
UNENFORCEABLE AFTER LAPSE OF 5 YEARS, AS THE APPEAL
BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT BE FILED AS
BARRED UNDER LIMITATION ACT AND AS SUCH THE ORDERS
ARE ILLEGAL, UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNEXECUTABLE.

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

                       JUDGMENT

This intra-Court Appeal by the borrowers seeks to

call in question learned Single Judge's order dated

15.12.2022 whereby their W.P.No.55886/2017 (GM-DRT)

having been disposed off, they are relegated to Appellate

remedy. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that

learned Judge has erred in holding that the Writ Petition is

not maintainable merely because an alternate remedy

NC: 2023:KHC:32505-DB WA No. 173 of 2023

avails to his clients; when there is an error apparent on

the order of the DRT such as, violation of principles of

natural justice, Writ remedy cannot be denied to the

aggrieved citizens; years have lapsed after the filing of the

Writ Petition and therefore, the same ought to have been

considered on merits.

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the Appellants and having perused the Appeal papers, we

decline indulgence in the matter being broadly in

agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge.

Firstly, what was challenged in the Writ Petition is the

order dated 04.09.2017 rendered by the Debt Recovery

Tribunal under the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002. This is how the prayer in the

Writ Petition is couched. The Petition was filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution which vests a limited

supervisory jurisdiction in the Writ Court, the other

provision namely Article 226 having been ornamentally

employed in the pleadings of the Appellant. It is not that

NC: 2023:KHC:32505-DB WA No. 173 of 2023

any Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners has been

violated. Merely because, a contention as to breach of

natural justice has been taken up, a Writ Court does not

readily grant interference. Such a contention can be

urged even in the Appeal which the statute itself provides

for.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the

Appellants that years having lapsed, his clients could not

have been relegated to the Appellate remedy does not

much impress us. It is not the case of Appellants that

there is no such remedy available in the statute;

apparently, it does. Therefore, the learned Single Judge in

his discretion declined indulgence. As already mentioned

above, the ground of violation of principles of natural

justice is not prohibited from being urged in the statutory

Appeal. It hardly needs to be stated that all grounds

taken up in the Writ Petition can be urged in the Appeal

against the order of the DRT. Since that happens to be

the first appeal, the scope of interference of the Appellate

NC: 2023:KHC:32505-DB WA No. 173 of 2023

Authority is much wider than that of the Writ Court

exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction.

4. The above being said, the period spent in

prosecuting the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal including

a few days for obtainment of a certified copy this our

order, needs to be given discount under the principle

enacted in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, whilst

computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing of

the Appeal. That would do complete justice to the cause

brought before this Court. If the Appeal as indicated in

the impugned order is filed, the Appellate Authority may

consider request of the Appellants for expeditious disposal

keeping in view other pending matters.

In the above circumstances and with the above

observations, this Appeal is rejected in limine.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE Bsv,Snb/