<,'§Ey s;i :[K N MAHABALESHWARA RAD,ADV.
IN TH HIGH counm or KARNAmAKA.Am aANaaLq3gf ',
THIS run 14""
B E F 0 R g A
THE HON'BLE M.JUST1QE k}§FMANJfiR5§$°V
WRIT pnwzrxou NO. 192éé §E22dofi(é$%b§m;H
BETWEEN : "' y+'VS . -_ ,
1 B KRISHAEEA S/Q_B¥RAPRA*k -SV»
AGED e1 EEARS 5 "-;.A,}_ I«,»
no 15a;2 fi%RUTEI€EflQARi"flh5AQU3 VILLAGE
K R 2URAM'Ha3Lz;,BanaA3oRE EAST TQ
§éfiGAEGEEe6fi}' f]a 'g'
REpwBx'HIs%ycwER,oF'»--*
HrTORNEY Honnng K MURUGESH 3/0 5 KRISHNAN
A§Ep*ABou:}50.2Egks,'
no 121,VIKAXAKE pa? our,
WHITE,FIELE,7 "vi
5BauaA:oRg=56oé66
if
ms»:
1. ace BANK
nT no 13/22, K G ROAD
» '*.BANaALoRE
'= »By ITS ASST.GENERAL MANAGER
AND fiUT ORIZED GFFICER
2 UCO BANK
MALLESWARAM BRANCH
H0 47, WEST BARK ROAD
15Tfl QRQSS BANGALORE
BY ITS MANAGER
1 or MA3cH¢ 2aofif~i T
3 SYED SAIFFULLAH
NO 47/2 I-IAINES Rom
FRASER TOWN
THIS W.P. IS FILED A:zT_ic:1'.-."E:s '"<22V§s s.
2.2? 015' TE t.:g_.g.T;TuTTo1-I 03.. PRAEINQ To
QUASI-I Ammx.M. THE_"*ORD._?:A'.R_VDT._..16.11.2007 IN
!R!,'l1. ' nnnun
I.A.i~'u'G.319/266?, ; :.r.J_ , vnunn ET.
16.11.2007 IN I.A.NO;'8_20_/200.7,"--3n1~§'fiE'.X.P. THE
onnnn DT. 15;11.2oo"'7""--1'1¢ "I.}.A.NO.,«3»21i2Gfi7
ANN'.E:X.Q. T:B'.1?a":;.T,T-"0R1)EI=_. ET."-6--1_§f.11.2oo7 It-I
I.A.NO.202_T?'/i2OOT?,._j.Ii*1_' ga?;.,$.A;.rf;a.1,33/2006 on THE
mm es" 5.2.1.:-1-:s;'---. Taxmm mg:
consEQuEnTLT..%_"A'1:LoW' "A9;§m:cATIoNs FILED mt
Tim TETTTi6:.:Eaia I..A.NG.8191'2Gfi7 as PER
1.AA;j'r:gJ~.;32Es3T/vzeonv AS PER ANNEXJB,
I .A.NO.6«21'/2007 * As PER A1~mE.x.s. AND
I.A,15IQ,202.7f'2vOG7 VAs_"'_;TER Amrs.x.J. IN A.S.A..
NO.133_/2006" TISSUE CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTION
2-3.-my 'D'I3fIr'\11'fl'D'U' m'D'r'nI"mm1'.
In $\uh lII\4 I-I-l'I-l-I :1
run an - . :51' B nu
V , LU .. l.'.l".l..'.'I ' .l.'.I.\Il.Vl "'.!J.l.I8.| V J.\.|.'.|\.o\.I V a;.I.I.\.L
E€AR1<a'.?-XTAKA 'AT
PETITION comma on Eon onnmzs
TIiIS--.,DAY',."_"--T!43}?;' comm: MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
H ccmsent of parties, the Writ Petition
heard on nuerits.
2 . The petitioner aggrieved by the
rejection of four applicéations filed by him
n/’
W
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ,
in ASA No.133/2006 has filed Ht§igWT
-up-u—-
231;; ti 1′!
V 6
3. The petitioner ag_grie’veti– by pthe ‘a¢t:j;¢n
initiated. by the respeheent–Bahkt:ehderV the
provisions of thex stttt1t;§at1ot %Att in
respect of land 18 guntae
situated. 1n.*3g}Not15$%§ V§fI7Haeednr
wt” 1 h V ht ‘th£11td
“”” }r’it2§é§’:tfi§e; téettion 17 of the
the said appeal he
£i1e¢_tne”£q;1tw1figVapp11tationa:
:,\—e.app.oint'””‘a”v Commissioner ta find out
‘ property sold by the Baal;
It order to find out the nature of
V. sold by the respondent-Bank under the
Act, he requested the Tribunal to appoint
a comrniesioner which application was
rejected by the Bank on the ground that
0/
ft’
‘W:-1 i-_’ ”
2)
eogoiesti not the original»;
abpfiiication was filed. .In
4
there is no necessity to make _;’a- I
application filed vb}{__
been rejected by the
ground that tg%o¢a1eeér§;i¢at1oni1$ filed
only to 1f1araae_ H auction
ureheeer
’15
El’
….. .-._..= .’……a.;’- .–|.._’;.-1’7 ,’
an l.JI»3§:.’=.ll.’_’.l–..!§£__||= ‘E.-‘ (.!._..’ ‘_
In the”‘;eeoot;o. exaiplioation, the petitioner
sought % to: “the original dooumerxts
on the grofind tnet at the time of filing
~ éppeaivviiiiihe had produced only xerox
8/
In order to
it * repplication he also sought to produce two
more documents, namely, -the Power of
Attorney said to have been executed by him
in favour of Murugeeh, which document was
2/
‘V
i’ f
not in existence at the time of filing the~x
anneal and also a copy of the piaintifiieawi
This appiieati*fi wfs also”opposee”by the’
Bank on the ground” that .tn¢sa\ onioinal
documents wetefl ;a§ai1ahle inithé the
petitionen, pmntoseif he flio not produee
the sane gandi in large: .t§? drag on the
proceedings V-tLey’°anpiioation. has been
filed;. The agfilieation has been nejeet-d
hi the Trihnnal only on the ground that he
_shoul& have firoanoed the originals at the
entime=of filing the appeal and in order to
n”a§oot° the delay tactics, the present
‘i_iappiieation was filed. The said
-I .|_-|_ __
iThe petitioner also filea ano n r
application seeking permission to examine
the witnesses. The application has been
gla-
‘.0
rejected on the ground that there«~…’iAe:’__’
previeion to file such an a;ap1ieati.en;_i.”~ I
The last applieatien was –…_..g,-1
‘petitioner seeking peernfieeien of f.?o1:u.rti V
to amend the appeafa» (Sn:
that taking A_._ §by’ the} Bank
under Sec.V13(4)’VV_ef’ :}1§j;f!§v’ii__’.*i.l1ega1. and
ve_’1_c;i_–~ is also
e*ppeses_’i -:’kx:iy en “the greens}. t…=.-..;
euych ai”‘e;)ntéant.ier_i has already raised
in ‘*the and that there is no
neeeeeity r’ai§ae again. The application
V'”=efi»-.”the..épetitiener is also rejected.
?rn§z>e£¢:1§’e.%a, present petition is filed.
3 Having heard. the learnee’. ecrrmeel f”*r
V. i’ the parties , in regard to the :E irst
_’Va§)plication, whether the property in question
is an agricultural land or non-agricultural
land, there is no necessity for the Tribunal
am/’
‘( I
.+.:;.’;=:–=. ”
to appoint a Comrnissioner. If V.
agricultural land, it is always —
under the Land av ‘tie A–t ta. –_— still’ ‘it-4 ‘
an agricultural. If he the
he is always at d”‘t:1-net the
property is an and not a
non–agricu1t”r;a:§; I to find out
t..e na 1
the 3. Cezmaissiener.
Therefere’, not see any reasons
to ;Lx1terlfer’ev.withlithe order passed by the
non “”th?e said statement as per
is open for the petitioner to
.. ‘:2-
’15’
red__ee.’re:.;evant record to prove the nature of
– u.-.
an “3:e’sEc::::e the Tr.muual.
l5. In regard tn) the second application,
.
x'”it is net 2… dispute ..–et el-ng with the
appeal 1~1’emo,’he has produced
of the domunents. Later the petitioner is
W
«no
-willing to produce the original of
The Court is of the opinion, the
ell fairness e..oulo1. hex
petitioner to produce the or:’.gi.na1 v.h V
so far as the other’V”g:.two are
concerned, one is Power
of Attorney was not in __’.ri>n the date
of filing ag-»p11rrt1§§r;– In order to
be perieon ”
Attorney can «before the Tribunal at
any “Therefore there cannot be
–V.,.o.,an§–._”:’objeetionthy the Bank to receive such
._Power fittorney filed by the petitioner
be£ere,the”£ribunel. In reward to
.na.mely, the oopy of tn plaifit,
_ad;n__i;tted1y it is a suit which was pending
.»v_hietween the petitioner and the Bank. The
genuineness of the said. document cannot be
doubted either by the respondent–Bank or by
r5K/
\(
it ‘ ‘ _ the
“$21/2007 is hereby quashed.
9
the Tribunal. Therefore, no injustieerucu1djA
be caused to such an ayplicaticn is cismissefi;u
6. In the circumstances; <I.An82§f¢?3wifij
ASA 133/2006 filed by'uTt;he_ petitioner{seeking
permessicn cf tee Ir1sune;*,tc prcduee the
documents is h'rebf's11fwea and Annexure–fi is
hereby quashed, V"
“.2. In -::..§s”E3§AI?I;i::.’31;..’|%e’V”>:6lEi_d_ .-.mn;;sa1_:;a_”,
I.A.B21/Tjv is ccncerned, it is “ct in ei*§”t*
that the”evidence of the parties has not been
addced.aernerefcretuithcut seeking permission
‘V” qf fins Tribunei} the petitioner was entitled
“Mt efii Land eddnce the evidence by means of an
afgiusvit; else with tue de_ument§. The
‘~Tr1bunel has unnecessarily reject-a the same.
r_In_ the circumstances, order passed in i3
Accordingly,
I.A.is allcwed. Petiticner is at liberty to
examine the witnesses.
8/
8. Lastly in regard to IA
concerned, it is the specific case”‘-..;off_i’-the’
respondent–Bank that in the:v’§:teyerV._po£tionv of
K!’ W I”§fl”-l ; ‘Jun? W W ‘ Jan yjlflsfl V ‘I A ‘ u”
that he has requested his-ciairei entire
sale transaction a.s=._iJ.1e§a1’:4 contréry to
the provisions of the if’sec1;;_:;ati,sation Act.
According to — lesrneii cofivnseiiieffor the Bank,
in view of 1:§ragye’r–.2 the =_Appea1 Memo whisch
-icg.-1 -Hn’n’I-‘Jan 1f.;’$’ AF ‘4-_ :9. -IR’-ii-‘t-.’.-.11a.-an I”If\’h’l’ an-\-I-Irv +- ‘1-4-.
-L Q L’ V’ T ” ‘ ‘V &–“‘i W 11: II? ” mg”? HT
3%
be by tiie._j;»eti.ti;oner, the petitioner” s
counsei does ‘ not dispute the séd point that
iv”«-the’-Vinjsetitioneti’:i;s~”:cequesting the Tribunal to
V sale of the schedule
‘Villeg:-.13. ” it is …o:r: the Tr’
pro;:erty_.”ic.1:t§er the Seouritization Act as
.5 ”
‘find.’i:o,g on the legality and correctness of
…”””‘ta’.,k’.ing possession by issuing notice under
uifsection 13 of the Act. Therefore, this Court
8/
11
does not see any reasons to interfere ~ V’
order passed by the Tribunal.
9. In the result, Wzgiii
3.l1OWI3d.”‘ in -part . The ” ‘ ‘pa;i:s:3¢c1 : ‘ V
320/2007 and 321/21307 a:q§%§”‘j;;11gw§d; order
passa in fig; :>2Qg?!2D07 are
confirmed ‘T-nun .a1 is
waived .