Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 109 (KAR)

Maya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Registrar

2020-01-13

ARAVIND KUMAR, E.S.INDIRESH

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. These two writ petitions have been preferred by the debtor assailing the proceedings pending before the DRAT, Chennai in MA (SA) 163/2011 (arising out of IR 2100/2010 in A.S.A.No.164/2008) on the file of DRT, Bengaluru and in MA 185/2017 (arising out of I.R.1536/2010 on the file of DRT, Bengaluru). 2. The sum and substance or the grievance of the petitioners urged in these two writ petitions are: Appellate Tribunal had passed an order on 04.01.2013 permitting or directing the registry of the Appellate Tribunal to send the deposited amount along with the accrued interest to the respondent bank and in turn bank was directed to keep the money in an interest bearing no lien account till disposal of the appeal and said order came to be modified by an order dated 09.02.2018 enabling the bank to receive the amount in deposit by adjusting to the loan account thereby defeating the claim of the writ petitioners for One Time Settlement OTS for which an application had been filed by the petitioners and as such, if proceedings are allowed to be continued before DRAT it would visit the petitioners with several civil consequences, namely, their claim for pursuing the application for OTS being accepted will be frustrated. Hence, it is prayed for quashing of entire proceedings in MA (SA) 163/2011. 3. It is also urged by the petitioners that order having been passed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and District Registrar of Stamps, Shivajinagar for impounding the documents produced by the secured creditor and as such, secured creditor cannot proceed to enforce the Recovery Certificate and this issue having been urged by the petitioners before the DRAT in M.A.No.185/2017 is not being examined and thereby, the right of the petitioners have been prejudiced. Hence, for these reasons petitioners are seeking for quashing of the proceedings pending in M.A.No.185/2017. 4. Having heard the party appearing in person and on perusal of the records, we find that it is not a case for issuance of notice to respondents for reason indicated below. Hence, for these reasons petitioners are seeking for quashing of the proceedings pending in M.A.No.185/2017. 4. Having heard the party appearing in person and on perusal of the records, we find that it is not a case for issuance of notice to respondents for reason indicated below. Insofar as M.A.No.163/2011 is concerned proceedings are pending before the DRAT and subject matter of W.P.No.539/2020, we notice that Appellate Tribunal, no doubt, as rightly contended by the party appearing in person, has passed order on 04.01.2013 directing the registry of the Appellate Tribunal for depositing the amount along with the accrued interest to be kept by the secured creditor bank in no lien account till disposal of the appeal. However, by order dated 09.02.2018 which was passed in the presence of learned Advocates appearing for the parties i.e., including the learned counsel who represented the petitioners herein before the Appellate Tribunal, it was ordered by the Appellate Tribunal directing the bank to receive the amount deposited by the writ petitioner i.e., appellant in MA (SA) 163/2011 in a sum of Rs.75.00 lakhs and a sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs in AIR 25/2015 which had been deposited under RDDB and FI Act towards the loan account. It has been made clear in the said order itself that any amount adjusted towards the loan amount will certainly help the parties to avoid undue accrual of interest and as such, permitted the bank to receive the amount from the registry of DRAT as well as amount lying in no lien account for being adjusted towards the loan amount. Petitioners claim to have filed interlocutory applications before the Appellate Tribunal contending that said adjustment is improper and is against the principles enunciated by the Honble Apex Court. The matter now being ceased before the Appellate Tribunal, if any opinion is expressed by us in these writ petitions with regard to the merits of the application filed by them before the Appellate Tribunal or with regard to the merits of the appeal itself, it will definitely prejudice the rights of the petitioners as well as secured creditor. In the light of larger issue of non acceptance of OTS pending before the Appellate Tribunal, it is for the Appellate Tribunal to take a decision on merits. Hence, we do not propose to interfere with the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal. In the light of larger issue of non acceptance of OTS pending before the Appellate Tribunal, it is for the Appellate Tribunal to take a decision on merits. Hence, we do not propose to interfere with the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal. All questions including the grounds urged in the present petitions, can be urged by the petitioners before the Appellate Tribunal. 5. It is needless to observe that applications filed before the DRAT, would be considered by the Appellate Tribunal, if such request is made along with the appeal and would be disposed of in accordance with law. Hence, petitioners would be at liberty to make a request to the DRAT in that regard. 6. Insofar as W.P.No.536/2020 is concerned, writ petition is against the proceedings pending in M.A.No.185/2017. Said appeal has been filed against the order of Recovery Certificate issued by the jurisdictional DRT. Tribunal adjudicated the claim and based on the documents which came to be produced by the secured creditor and after taking note of it. In other words, for allowing the application filed by the bank, the documents which had been relied upon by the bank came to be considered, which was the subject matter of adjudication before the District Registrar of Stamps and Deputy Commissioner who passed an order that sufficient stamp duty has not been paid by order dated 28.11.2018 Annexure E2 and has directed the secured creditor to deposit the deficit stamp duty. In fact, prima-facie, this order seems to benefit the writ petitioners herein for the present. Appellate Tribunal would definitely take note of this order at the time of adjudicating the appeal, if copy of the same has been filed or on being filed by either of the parties at the time of disposal of M.A.No.185/2017. If any interlocutory applications have been filed by the writ petitioners in M.A.No.185/2017, Appellate Tribunal would also necessarily examine the said application on merits and if such request is made we see no reason as to why same would not be considered by the Tribunal. Hence, we do not express any opinion in these writ petitions on merits of M.A.No.185/2017 and all contentions and also grounds urged before the Appellate Tribunal as well as grounds urged in the present writ petitions including contentions of the secured creditor are kept open. Accordingly, these writ petitions stands dismissed.