Writ Petition No. 42381-86 of 2012 · Karnataka High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- DILIP B BHOSALE
Outcome
Withdrawn
The writ petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Additional Government Advocate, though the Government is not a party to the writ petitions, invited my attention to Section 18 of the Act and submitted that an appeal under this provision is provided against the order passed in the appeal under Section 17 thereof.…
Judgment
Ms. Bani Kaur Bedi aged about 24 years D/o Mr.H S Bedi, I-77, Diamond District Airport Road, Kodihalli Bangalore – 560 008 Rep by her POA holder Mrs. Avneet Bedi. Mr.Aman Singh Bedi Aged about 22 years S/o.Mr.H S Bedi I-77, Diamond District Airport Road, Kodihalli Bangalore – 560 008 Rep by his POA holder Mrs. Avneet Bedi. Mrs. Avneet Bedi W/o.Mr.H S Bedi Aged about 50 years I-77, Diamond District Airport Road, Kodihalli Bangalore – 560 008.
2 Mr.H.S.Bedi S/o.Late I.S.Bedi Aged about 55 years I-77, Diamond District Airport Road, Kodihalli Bangalore – 560 008. M/s. IDEB Projects Pvt. Ltd. A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its registered Office at: 9th and 10th Floor Delta Towers, Varthur Kodi Whitefield Main Road Bangalore – 560 066 Rep by its Managing Director Mr.H.S.Bedi. M/s.IDEB Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its registered office at: 9th and 10th Floor Delta Towers, Varthur Kodi Whitefield Main Road Bangalore – 560 066 Rep by its Managing Director Mr.H.S.Bedi. (By Sri: Ajesh Kumar, Advocate for M/S: D S K Legal, Advocates) AND: HDFC Bank Ltd A Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Office at 548/D ...Petitioners 3 Maruthi Mansion, 2nd Floor CMH Road, Indiranagar Bangalore – 560 038 Rep by its Branch Manager. ...Respondent These writ petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the final order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka, dated 18.9.2012 passed in S.A.No.231/2011 vide Annexure-Q and direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka at Bangalore to reconsider the application of the petitioners herein in S.A.No.231/2011 and pass suitable orders by following the procedures laid down under the SARFAESI Act and Rules. These writ petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: PC: In these writ petitions, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 18.9.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka, in S.A.No.231/2011. The order dated
18.9.2012 has been passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in an appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, ‘the Act’). In the appeal, the petitioners had challenged the order under Section 13(4) of the Act. 4
Operative part
Additional Government Advocate, though the Government is not a party to the writ petitions, invited my attention to Section 18 of the Act and submitted that an appeal under this provision is provided against the order passed in the appeal under Section 17 thereof. Having confronted with this, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act. Hence the following order: The writ petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. If the petitioners file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today and comply with all formalities contemplated under Section 18 of the Act for maintaining the appeal, the appellate Tribunal shall consider the appeal on merits in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the respondent-Bank. Since the writ petitions were filed within 30 days from the date of the order 5 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka, in S.A.No.231/2011, the parties are directed to maintain status- quo for a period of four weeks from today. It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall intimate this order to the respondent forthwith. The petitioner shall also serve a copy of the appeal on the respondent-Bank well in advance. It is made clear that the order of status-quo shall not be extended further by this Court and the petitioners will have to apply for an interim order before the appellate Tribunal with an advance notice to the respondents. All contentions of the petitioners are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE KM
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Constitution of India — art. 227; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.