M/S Metallurgical Service … vs The Registrar on 4 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4"" DAY OF JANUARY 2010

PRESENT

THE H()N'BLE MRJUSTICE V.oopALA..§:c>v.%DA *  

AND 
THE HC)N'I%3LE MR.JUSTIC~E :A.,S.BC.)PA:NNAV   '
WRIT APPEAL No.4'23S/20()9 (GM ;mm 

BETWEEN: V K H V

M/s Meta1Iurg'i(te1E   

Rep. By its sc)}_:'}3__ropri'é3to'1f.7S«..S.obra:jn3niam

No.2421, 8l1§~'!Vi'2;ijn' Road; 2'2"<o"'Cross._.....--

Banashan 1«:a'r;_ 21}7$1.';':Sta.g$_,;'  V'
Bangalore. f  OTO. _  &_  '

{By Sr; 9.s12;1.;;ri':;:.f;aotif1ao;}1"'Qadvocate)

AND

 , &_ l.v_»»TI"1eLRegis1':"éi3g... ..... <4 .

A "D€b'fR€§é1§")\='C1'y "i'I"ibunaI.
" Krishi Bha2ra1'1, Hudson Circle,

 V._o-'Banga§oi'€§'V-4560 002.

2. "'I.11di._a'r1 -i*3'§';':nk.
Rc.pr:3se?111e<fi by its Manager,
.. Vo1Jayjanaggar I.3.ran.:;:h No.3-46
V Iv!ahana1::ci1C()urt.,
"'1 Crosss. 3"-' Biock,

 Bangalore W 560 O1 1. .... .. Respondents

4%

---vi"
fl



'3.
I

This Writ" Appeal is filed ti/S 4 of the Karriataka

High Court" Act p1*ayii1g to set aside the order passed in
the writ petition No.3.'3572/2009 dated 26.1 1.2009.

This Apgaezxl coming on for orders thistcday,
Bopannati. d('.liV(;'.l'("ffd the f0ii0wing:-- "   



The appeiiant herein  dh._:jeti»tionVe.«r"--..:Vin,

W.P.No.33572/2009. The Etearfied singie' i;:u'iig'"e:Wbg2 border'

dated 26.11.2009 hasrdjsmiss'ed.the"p.etition'."* 

2. The_grievance'_of  that the Debt
Recovery  and disposed
of the ciaim   Bangalore. In this
regard,  behaif of the appellant that
prejudic'e.V_p4v'rou1Ed._.A:bte'*'ea'use'd to" the a'ppe!'|ant' since the

respiondpent.'banE<"has" already initiated proceedings under

the" .Se'riuriVtiA~seation  Reconstruction of Financiai Assets

..i§'r':ifo'rcett$ent of Security Interest Act 2002

3%

($e.curiV_tisaVt.§.oAn Act for short) and against the said

proceedihgs the appeilant is aiready before the Debt

3"-,,i§:ec.o'very Appeiiate Tribunal, Chennai and in the said

watppeai an interiocutory order has been passed granting

certain relief to a peiiant subject to deposit of a sum of

i



.2:

Rs. 45 lakhs. According to the appellant the said condition
has been compiled with by the appellant and since the

said matter is to be adjudicated by the Debt Reco.very

Appellate Tribunal, in the meanwhile if the 

with the original proceedings also, the appel_lan.t 

to hardship.

3. Having considered--~._the"~said_ 'c.on=tzen-izion onfl'

behalf of the appellant we ha_yle:g'»p_eru_»sed.hthe.,ord_er passed
by the_Single Eudge.  :.t_Q the nature of
the two proceegdinugs Lii'1d'e{'¥th.e._Securiti;sa't'i'.on Act and the
original   .'f)ebtm;Recovery Tribunal,

the learnved~._{$én_gv_Ie .ij:.:;jVVsH_v,.?rightly referred to the

decision of the'j"H:oi1.fbil'e:"Su'preme Court in the case of

Mardia.CVhe'rni;:aVV§'s_if/'s"E.lrg'eEon of India reported in 2004(4)

SCQ 311. "i'iri'erefo_re the only question that arises for

.Acon_sid.ertatio:n"~«.is as to whether the proceedings before the

 Debt' Fv2"5eo\\",§~31«»..»f_e'i"i§r"'Vi.'ribanal requires to be interfered with and

in that"--regard whether learned Single Budge has erred in

  not,_entertaining the writ petition of the appellant.

 4. In this regard since the position of law has been

Vwnoticed by the learned Single Sludge and we are also clear

i

'-9



Li



on that aspect of the matter relating to the proceedings
that can be initiated in the said manner, even if the Debt

Recovery Tribunal proceeds to consider the ciri'ggina|

appii ation and dispose of the same, the 

course for the appeilant is to approach the _ V'

Appeiiate Tribunai against such  ':-«€e'nce' i--t:_.gw'ouiCi"'noVt

be appropriate for this _Court7--toF.stayfthe"ftJ*rthe'r'r,

proceedings before the De'bi:s»Recovery"heiiiribtinaii. We

therefore see no reasonto   thevordyer passed
by the -iearned Singie Judge.i','g5itt:or--'d:in~g.ii_'yt,tithe writ appeai

being devoid;o'f'~g;igif§i'erit=._ No order as to

costs.

Sd/-7
JUDGE

 .....  

JUDGE

Vsféii’