Sri C M Asoka vs Indian Overseas Bank on 9 September, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

amen Ti-£15 cm THE 97*' cm OF seprmssa 2m..f€s%%,T

BEFORE

THE Horeme MR. msnce RAVI Mauméfh-2  '    L

BETWEEN

1 5:21 c M ASOKA

AGEII) 34 vanes L
510:: Mmmwaa   
R,/Amo.165, CHITTA; _ w.i.t '  
KASABA HOBLI,      k
HOLENARAE-IPURA xawkx   _  ' % Ak  
HASSAR _..£:iIS"fR1C}' -¢ 5k?321%% 

2 sa:%a:M§mxALAzAH%%%
Atsea 65'YEAfi5      
31:2 uacra    L
RlAfVVN0,165,V€}¢IfTA§:imALu,
 tzczau,    
mgeuaaasxpuan mm:

V»»'~i3}AS£:"§AN~5?321_1«.v

. . . PETITIDMERS

(81? .§RiV'DfL:?'Ai§U.MAR, ADVOCATE)

3 * * mum oxrensaqs emc
-  No.30/9, vrvemmmp. mm
YADAVAGIRI
msoae-svmzo
REP BY ITS SENIOR MANAfiER

 RE"5PONDEflT
(av sax RAVISHANKAR, Auvacme)

41:



THIS WP. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22? OF
THE CGNSTITUTION OF IN£3Ifi PRAYIRG TD QSJASH 
omen msseo av THE neurone oeor RECQV§RY

mzounm. or. 3.8.2009 DISMISSING 'me m»ucA?;o[:4.% ox 
MA N0. saizooo IN 0.6. no. 412 or zooo vzosANx~--4.   
ALLOW HTHE MA NO. w/zoos IN op. o. 412o%fr2omr%as.% ~

PRAYEB FOR ETC.

This petition coming on  'B' " L'

Group thk day, use Court mada__tfije._fo!1owiog':«e.._ 

The    26308 before the

Debts  recovery of a sum of
Rs.10,90,',?__77[~ o!ofigé,i.'Aaéif:h.:_:inbéreast During the pendency of

me a1.ap£i_cot'iué:n.. _' 'ooh 'to  "£.he absence of the wtitioner,

   ivoootfowed diracting the defendants to

  along with interest. Aggrievad by the

  said---..ord§w~,'.§§L§..No.B9[2909 was fiied seeking to set aside

 "the Lsaiovvorder and for mhorafion of fire application. By the

'   :."§mpu§--ned order, we JVLA. No.89/2069 was dis-massed.

2. Sri. Diiip I-(urnar, the loarrsod counsel for the

A petifloners contends mat the Tribunal book a hyper-

bechnica! View of the matter dawning to condone the deiay

«Aw



on me ground that procaadings would be proionqed. Bu

further submitted 613! the enfira amount as chimed in.-the

cm. Na-.412/zoos has since been paid to the 3a.a[k.A:%'r!1eV%¢

right of the petitianars so far as refimd of  

ccmcemed weuid ban to be dean; veg-itfi' by   K 'V

therefore submiw that the impugfiiafi   

and $9 liable to be mt asidt.

3. Sri. Rav§shan'5§a}}  i._i'eAsV"a':'..t.1a'¥§:'f'"«.<:_:3i.::1s'a'§tlVAVfor the
nwpondant by relying any Recovary of
Debts Due sq  em;-.¢:a: zhststfitsans Act, 1993,

ccneencifi  is appaalable and
hence, nb for. He placed reliance on

paragfagxtjs   .v'27."::!V' l;l1a Judgtmnt of the Apex Court

' : mpa6t*!;:§d-'in "m r;2oA1<:)ec 495 (so) { uurrso BANK OF
    ?§~.,;fiATYAWA11 'ronnom AND omens ) be

  _ cofitgnd Qny inbarfemnce by the writ Court should be

  "with cai'r%e,':'ca:uti<:n and circurrxspecfion.

 HA4. Haard counsek.

5. It is submitbad mat the entire amount as clairned
in the <3*.A.412[20% has since been paid ta the
raspondent-Bank. However, the anther legal rights of fiha

X4"



petitioners require to has considered by the Tribunal.

Therefore, aliowing of tha said applicafion and dinacting

payment cf the amount clairc-led in 0.5.. is therefore 

and iiable be be inmrferw with.

6. The applicatian seeking  r*ei§§i!ij*.t'he 

3.3.2699 has been rejected  énfiae  

putitioner that he intends to  the   vfiw of
the entire amount  siéiidciner, the
finding retarded by the  the attitude
cf the petifi§?isé::;r:.1. 'tl'ige':."':  Emralved is

arrcnenfiss. _' T' " 

?. Ti1e_Vap;:li£:a_lV:i<§;vn  am rejected on the graund

 _that'i;h§__i'c:r;ierV"ai*l¢wi_;1«g the 0.A.412/2908 was pamad an

  appiication was filed on 9.6.2009.

  iitfi; a delay. The applicatian has been filed

 witliih  which is a reaeonabla téme. Nu substantial

 '2..f'»dislaai*,£_ that defeats the mm of the other side has

'   Hence, the impugned order requires ha ha set

  miaiisidae.

8. The Tribunal is expeclaad to consider the claims of

either of the partim in a fair, just and raascnahle manner.

Z4"



Orders as such dismming Btu appticatians soaking

ranking on the ground that thay were med 

after em impugned orders were pamed isfncxt-1V': 

erronews, but also against the spgifit M.   

impugned orders as such are  

Tribune! shoum tharaforc cénfitiar sfivth.  ap§1i;;§'t~$< :h's'  a
fair and just mannar and' not.V't6--..§§r$tipt_.'a htvpar-téchnkaf

View as has been done 'th__e"  

9. The tag iaamed came:
for the  to' the interference by
we  %Vfi appea£abIe efficaciaus
remedy.  by the writ Ccurt

is s0;z§gh!;_fof; :1§_§ 'v§hefs  fins! order has been pasud,

  'hut 't:%§ En  ordsr deciirzing ho condone the

 Adaa;§a_y"§f The appoalabiaa named? providecf under

  flu: ai_:atL_:_m  not therefore arnoemt to an efficacious

 facm of ma cam warrants interference. on

   faifure to examine the writ jurisdiction wank!

  'A  be travesty of justka. Hamta, I' am of the considsrad

 "  View that the principles ersunciatmi in the Judgnrant of mi

Hcrflble Supreme Court 0f India wouid not per as be

<4"

appiic-able an the case an hand.



10. For the aforwaid reasons, the order dated
3.9.2009 passw in RA. Na.89/2809 by the Debt Rcacgajtety
Tribunal $3 quashea. M.A. 39/zms is allowed. Thagggeg

dated 3.3.2009 is recanted. The Tribunal 

ctmsider the GA.  .§§s£=._ V

appropriate orders thereon in accof¢3a:%§:e'iviff2. !vé*.§:é',   

1.

1. Writ petition stands diéfiem or:.% %

Msu