NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR v. UCO BANK
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. We therefore, dispose of the said petition with liberty to the petitioners to make the pre-deposit of Rs.34.00 lakhs as directed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, vide impugned order dated 03.05.2017 within a period of 15 HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010311952017 - 8 -…
- Para 55. We find no substance in this argument. The petitioners are claiming right over the secured assets against, which the loan was advanced by the UCO Bank to the owners of the lands and if the petitioners want to maintain the appeal against the decree…
- Para 66. We therefore, dismiss W.P.No.22768/2017. IN W.P.No.15563/2019: The AIR No.285/2014 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the DRAT, Chennai. The petitioners had obtained an interim order dated 30.05.2017 from this Court, whereby the order dated 03.05.2017 passed in AIR No.285/2014 was stayed.
Judgment
(BY SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. V VINAY GIRI., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010311952017 - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:37305-DB WP No. 22768 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15563 of 2019 AND:
#1. UCO BANK NO.149/2, HOSUR ROAD KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGER
#2. A M SHARATH CHADNRA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SRI M C MUNIVENKATE GOWDA ALUNGOOR GROVE, 23RD MAIN 5TH PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALROE-560 078
#3. T PHANI MAHESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SRI T ASHWATH NARAYANA REDDY NO.1136, BABUNILAYAM 17TH CROSS, 7TH SECTOR 5TH MAIN ROAD, HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 034
#4. M/S DUO ASSOCIATES NO.28, ULSOOR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP.BY ITS PARTNERS MR SHARATH CHANDRA AND MR T PHANI MAHESH
#5. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD No.14/3,RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
#6. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-I (BMICP) HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010311952017 - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37305-DB WP No. 22768 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15563 of 2019 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD No.14/3, RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K R PARASHURAM., ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED:03.07.2018, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED:09.01.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. P.V.CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:13.3.2017 PASSED BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI ON I.A.NO.636/2015 IN AIR NO.285/2014 (ANNEXURE-K), ETC. IN WP NO. 15563/2019 BETWEEN:
#1. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED NO 1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF MAHATMA GANDHI RAOD, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR A RUDRAGOUD
#2. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED NO 1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDENS, OFF MAHATMA GANDHI RAOD, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37305-DB WP No. 22768 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15563 of 2019 HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010311952017 MR A RUDRAGOUD (BY SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V VINAY GIRI., ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONERS AND:
#1. UCO BANK NO 149/2, HOSUR ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560095 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANGER
#2. MR A M SHARATH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SON OF SRI M V MUNVIENKATEGOWDA ALUNGOOR GROVE, 23RD MAIN, 5TH PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE - 560078
#3. MR T PHANI MAHESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SON OF SRI T ASHWATH NARAYANA REDDY NO 1136 BABU NILYAM 17TH CROSS, 7TH SECTOR 5TH MAIN ROAD, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560034
#4. M/S DUO ASSOCIATES NO 28, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 REP BY ITS PARTNERS MR SHARATH CHANDRA AND MR T PHANI MAHESH (BY SRI. K R PARASHURAM., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010311952017 - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37305-DB WP No. 22768 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15563 of 2019 SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2019 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI, IN AIR NO.285/2014 (ANNEXUER-G) AND CONSEQUENTLY, PASS ORDERS RESTORING AIR NO.285/2014 TO THE FILE OF THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) IN W.P.No.22768/2017: The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 03.05.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Chennai on I.A.No.636/2015 in AIR No.285/2014, arising out of order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in OA No.49/2013.
#2. The UCO Bank had filed the Original Application for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,34,41,819/- with interest @ 17% p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization, which was secured by the borrower by mortgaging the land in Sy.No.5/7 measuring 36 guntas and Sy.No.5/8 measuring 33 HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010311952017 - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37305-DB WP No. 22768 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15563 of 2019 guntas situated at Pillaganahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
#3. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, vide order dated
31.10.2013 had decreed the O.A.No.49/2013 for a sum of Rs.1.34 Crores. The petitioners claim that the secured lands have been acquired by the government for the benefit of the petitioners and the petitioners have to construct Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor and they have substantial interest in the lands in question. However, despite having substantial interest in the lands in question, they do not want to make the statutory pre-deposit as directed by the learned DRAT, Chennai vide impugned order dated 03.05.2017.
#4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are neither borrowers nor guarantors and therefore, though they have substantial interest in the lands in question inasmuch as the lands have been acquired for the petitioners' benefit, they cannot be directed to make statutory pre-deposit of Rs.34.00 lakhs as directed by the DRAT, Chennai, for maintaining the appeal. HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010311952017 - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:37305-DB WP No. 22768 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15563 of 2019
#5. We find no substance in this argument. The petitioners are claiming right over the secured assets against, which the loan was advanced by the UCO Bank to the owners of the lands and if the petitioners want to maintain the appeal against the decree passed by the DRAT, Chennai, the petitioners are required to make the pre-deposit of a sum of Rs.34.00 lakhs, under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
#6. We therefore, dismiss W.P.No.22768/2017. IN W.P.No.15563/2019: The AIR No.285/2014 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the DRAT, Chennai. The petitioners had obtained an interim order dated 30.05.2017 from this Court, whereby the order dated 03.05.2017 passed in AIR No.285/2014 was stayed.
#2. We therefore, dispose of the said petition with liberty to the petitioners to make the pre-deposit of Rs.34.00 lakhs as directed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, vide impugned order dated 03.05.2017 within a period of 15 HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010311952017 - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:37305-DB WP No. 22768 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15563 of 2019 days from today before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, and if the said amount is deposited, the AIR No.285/2014 shall be restored to its original number and the DRAT should proceed to appeal the matter on merits in accordance with law.
#3. However, if the petitioners fail to make the statutory deposit of Rs.34.00 lakhs i.e., to maintain the appeal, the order passed by the DRAT dismissing the appeal shall attain finality. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NG CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.