Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 629 (KAR)

Annes Collection Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

2014-07-01

D.H.WAGHELA, H.G.RAMESH

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The petition was sought to be withdrawn after arguing at the admission stage of some length. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners appear to be the contentions being raised for the first time before this court, after pendency of the Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) since the year 1998 In fact, it was noticed from the order dated 7.12.2013 of DRT at Bangalore that, while allowing the Original Application with exemplary cost and ordering recovery of the amount claimed by the bank with interest at the rate of 17.85% per annum with quarterly rests, the DRT was constrained to observe inter alia as under:- "36. While departing with this order one make out that on account of false defense, present applicant bank has to suffer for nearly more than 18 years and still bank is running under dilemma. This is a unique case wherein one can find misuse and abuse of process of judicial forums. On account of false defense, this Tribunal is intending to impose exemplary costs of more than ten lakhs to give a strong message that, such false defense will not be tolerated by Tribunal/Courts, but however this Tribunal feels that, symbolically Rs. 50,000/- exemplary costs be paid by defendants to the present applicant bank to meet the ends of justice and if same is not paid, same be recovered as part of loan." 2. Thereafter, while partly allowing the application of the petitioners by the impugned order dated 24.2.2014, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Chennai had also found that the petitioner had mainly argued that the bank had not made out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and yet the Tribunal waived part of the pre-deposit to enable the petitioners to put forth their case in the appeal. Thus, in spite of no ground having been made out to cover the case of the petitioners under the proviso to Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Tribunal thought it fit to give a concession of 25% from the requirement of 75% pre-deposit. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 35,72,364/- on or before 26.3.2014. 3. Before seeking to withdraw the petition, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners would be prepared to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- if their appeal were to be heard on merits. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 35,72,364/- on or before 26.3.2014. 3. Before seeking to withdraw the petition, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners would be prepared to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- if their appeal were to be heard on merits. Thereafter, the petition is sought to be withdrawn with a view to filing an application for review before the DRAT. 4. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to file an application for review, without expressing any opinion about maintainability or merit of the review petition proposed to be filed by the petitioners.