Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 595 (KAR)

SUBBRAYA v. S. C. D. C. C. BANK LIMITED, UDUPI

2010-04-23

AJIT J.GUNJAL

body2010
ORDER Even though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with consent, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Arbitrator, the petitioner is before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAT). The main case of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority is that he is only a guarantor, hence the question of his satisfying the award passed against the respondents 3 and 4 does not arise. It is to be noticed that the appeal was filed in the year 2005 and the matter was posted for arguments on 5-3-2010, but, however, there was no representation by the petitioner or his Counsel and respondents 3 and 4 also could not attend the case, hence the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Immediately thereafter the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the said appeal. The petitioner also maintains an application for interim stay. The Tribunal has issued notice on the Misc. Petition as well as on the application. In the meantime, the property of the petitioner is brought to sale pursuant to a notification dated 16-4-2010, copy of which is produced at Annexure-J to the petition, indicating the scheduled auction to take place on 24-4-2010. 3. Mr. Achar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is only a guarantor, the question of his satisfying the award amount does not arise. He further submits that since the Misc. Petition and the application is still pending consideration, the interim order is essential. 4. Smt. Ujvala, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Vijaya Krishna Bhat, who has entered caveat for the 1st respondent-Bank submits that petitioner has dragged on the proceedings for over a period of five years. She further submits that it is open for the Bank to recover the amount either from the guarantor or the principle borrowers. Having regard to the fact that miscellaneous petition is still pending, I am of the view that the auction shall take place but however, confirmation shall not take place. Hence the following: ORDER i. The auction scheduled to take place on 24-4-2010 to go on, but confirmation shall be stayed pending disposal of the miscellaneous petition. ii. If the miscellaneous petition is allowed and the appeal is restored to file, the Tribunal shall conclude the proceedings itself, within three months. With this observation, petition stands disposed of.