Shri Bharatesh S/O Tatoba Nandani vs The General Manager
2024 Latest Caselaw 5629 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shri Bharatesh S/O Tatoba Nandani vs The General Manager on 22 February, 2024

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

                                          -1-
                                                  NC: 2024:KHC-D:4402
                                                   WP No. 101238 of 2024




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                 DHARWAD BENCH

                  DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                       BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                  WRIT PETITION NO. 101238 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
             BETWEEN:

             SHRI BHARATESH
             S/O TATOBA NANDANI
             AGE. 52 YEARS,
             OCC. CIVIL CONTRACTOR,
             R/O. P.NO. 2819,
             SECTOR NO.12,
             M M EXTN. NEAR LOVE DALE SCHOOL,
             BELAGAVI.
                                                             ...PETITIONER
             (BY SRI. VITTHAL S TELI.,ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             1.   THE GENERAL MANAGER
                  CANARA BANK
YASHAVANT         RECOVERY DEPARTMENT,
NARAYANKAR
                  CORPORATE OFFICE,
Digitally         CANARA BANK,
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
                  NO.112, J C ROAD,
                  BENGALURU 560062

             2.   THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
                  CANARA BANK,
                  SPECIALIZED ASSET RECOVERY
                  MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
                  H R M, CIRCLE OFFICER,
                  CENTRUM BUILDING,
                  2ND FLOOR, GOKUL ROAD,
                  AIRPORT ROAD, HUBBALLI,
                  DIST. DHARWAD 580030
                                  -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC-D:4402
                                           WP No. 101238 of 2024




3.   SRIKANT NARAYAN KALAL
     R/O. 10,
     MLALAMRUTI EXTENSION,
     BELAGAVI 590016

                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAKESH BILKI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
    SRI. SOURABH HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05/09/2023
PASSED ON IA NO.2198/2022 IN SA NO.367/2022 BY THE DEBTS
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, KARNATAKA, AT, BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-H.

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

                              ORDER

1. Sri.Rakesh Bilki., learned counsel is directed to

accept notice for respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 05/09/2023 passed on IA no.2198/2022 in SA No.367/2022 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Karnataka, at, Bengaluru vide Annexure-H.

b. Issue writ in the nature of declaration or order or direction declaring that the reducing the Reserve Price fixed from Rs. 1,49,09,000/- to Rs.1,38,71,000/- is contrary rule 8(7) (e) of the security interest (enforcement) rules 2002 vide Annexure-E.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4402

c. Consequently, issue writ in the nature of declaration or order or direction declaring E- Auction Cum Successful Bidder Announcement bearing Ref No.ARMHUB/FILE no 01/L.No65/2022 dated 21/02/2022 conducted by the respondent no.2 vide Annexure-F, the sale certificate dated 02/03/2022 vide Annexure-F1 executed by the Respondent no.2 infavour of the Respondent no.3 and the Memorandum Of Deposit Of Title Deed And Reconveyance Deed dated 04/03/2022, dated 02/03/2022 vide Annexure-F2 And F3 is contrary SARFAESI Act 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002.

d. Issue writ in nature of mandamus or direction, directing the respondents to considering OTS as per Annexure-D and D1.

e. Grant such other relief's as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

3. Sri.Vitthal S. Teli., learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Karnataka

(DRT) has dismissed the application for condonation

of delay in the appeal filed by the petitioner in SA

No.367/2022 on the ground that it does not have

power to condone the delay.

4. The said order of the trial Court of the DRT is

contrary to the judgment of the division bench of the

High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the case

of Aniruddh Singh vs. Authorized Officer, ICICI

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4402

Bank LTD., dated 3.1.2024 in MP No.5324/2023.

Wherein, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has

categorically held that the DRT has the power to

condone the delay.

5. There cannot be in any dispute with the said ruling of

the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. In that

view of the matter, I pass the following;

ORDER

i. The writ prediction is partly allowed.

ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 5.9.2023

passed on IA No.2198/2022 in SA No.367/2022

by Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Karnataka at

Annexure-H is quashed.

iii. The matter is remitted to the DRT for fresh

consideration in terms of the decision of the

Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in MP

No.5324/2023 dated 3.1.2024.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4402

iv. This Court has not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the matter. The DRT would be

required to deal with the matter on merits.

v. It is made clear that this Court has also not

made any observation on the merits of the

limitation application which will have to be

considered independently by the DRT.

SD/-

JUDGE

SR