Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Tabassum Ara vs Canara Bank on 4 April, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13809
WP No. 9906 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No. 9906 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. TABASSUM ARA,
W/O MOHAMMED WASIM,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT No.107, TAHIR MANSION,
5TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
RMV 2ND STAGE, BOOPASANDRA,
BANGALORE 560094.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CANARA BANK,
SME BRANCH, No.37 AND 38,
VENKATADRI COMPLEX,
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI BEHIND POLICE STATION,
Location: HIGH KHB COLONY, HOSKOTE 563114,
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
KARNATAKA SMT. S. VANISHREE,
D/O SRI K. SUNDAR,
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR
MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES (CGTMSE),
1ST FLOOR, SIDBI, SWAVALAMBAN BHAVAN,
C-11, G. BLOCK, BKC, BANDRA (EAST),
MUMBAI 400051.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NATASHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13809
WP No. 9906 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ILLEGAL IMPUGNED ORDER IN OA 1861/2018
DATED 19.10.2019 PASSED BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL BANGALORE (DRT-2) AT BANGALORE SAME AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ITS RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS IN RC NO.
265/2020 PENDING IN THE FILES OF DEBTS RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL BANGALORE (DRT-2) AT BANGALORE SAME AT
ANNEXURE-B HEREIN ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS IN
'FRESH MATTERS LIST' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court in a peculiar
circumstance. She seeks stay of an order passed by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru, in O.A.No.1861/2018, which
was disposed on 19.10.2019.
2. The petitioner secures certain finance from the
respondent-Canara Bank. The Canara Bank initiates
O.A.No.1861/2018 on the score that the borrower after
securing the amount has not repaid and therefore, the account
slipped into becoming a Non-Performing Asset. The defence of
the petitioner is that the loan itself is completely recovered
under the CGTMSE Scheme, which is disputed by learned
counsel Smt. Natasha Murthy representing the respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC:13809
3. Learned counsel Smt. Natasha would place reliance upon
the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Kinsi Hotels and
Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bank of India1 to
contend that under CGTMSE Scheme, the amount has to be
paid by the Bank and then recovered from the borrower. That
stage has not yet arisen.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
original order in O.A.No.1861/2018, disposed on 19.10.2019,
was an ex parte order, the borrower has preferred a
miscellaneous application in M.A.No.4/2024 in the said
O.A.No.1861/2018. The said M.A.No.4/2024 is to be taken
before the DRT on 12.04.2024.
5. The impending urgency projected by the petitioner is
that the possession of dwelling house of the petitioner is now
sought to be taken by the Canara Bank in terms of the order
passed in O.A.No.1861/2018, which was an ex parte order, and
an application to recall the said order is pending consideration
before the DRT. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct
the Bank not to take possession of the property till the DRT
2021 SCC OnLine Guj 2755
NC: 2024:KHC:13809
would dispose the application in M.A.No.4/2024 filed by the
petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 19.10.2019 on its
merit.
6. The DRT is directed to consider the application of the
petitioner and dispose the same after hearing all the parties
within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
It is needless to observe that the parties to the lis shall
co-operate for conclusion of the proceedings, supra.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands
disposed.
All contentions of both the petitioner and the respondents
are kept open to be urged before the DRT.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MV
