Smt. Bhavani Muniswamy vs Bank of Baroda

A.S. Bopanna

The Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.08.2010 passed on I.A. No. 1798/2010 in O.A. No. 96/2010. The said order is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The Petitioner has also sought for consequential direction to permit the Petitioner to be impleaded as additional Defendant in O.A. No. 96/2010.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

The case in brief are that the Petitioner claims to be the owner in respect of the properties bearing Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 9 bearing ''''Municipal Corporation Nos. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 situate in the 1st main road, Chmnappa Garden, Link Road, Bangalore, The said properties are stated to be part and parcel of Sy. No. 94/4 formed in. the layout. The manner in which the Petitioner acquired title to the property is also contended. The portions of the said property are stated to have been mortgaged by Respondent No. 2 in favour of the first Respondent. In respect of the recovery of the loan from the Respondents No. 2 to 4, the first Respondent-bank is stated to have initiated recovery proceedings before Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 96/2010. In the said proceedings, the Petitioner herein filed application for impleading since he has interest in the property which is indicated as the mortgage property in the recovery proceedings before the Tribunal. The first Respondent opposed the said application. The Tribunal has thereafter by the impugned order dated 23.08.2010 dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner is therefore before this Court.

The first Respondent has opposed the petition by filing a detailed objection statement along with the documents. Respondents No. 2 to 4 though served are un-represented.

in the light of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties in line with the contentions urged in the writ petition and the statement of objections, the question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in passing the order dated 23.08.2010 in the manner it has been done in dismissing the application. Before adverting to the merit of the said contention, the primary objection by the learned Counsel, for the Respondents with regard to the maintainability of the instant writ petition also requires to be noticed.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents would contend that as against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, an appeal is provided u/s 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, to the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai and therefore, the instant petition cannot be entertained by this Court.

Having noticed the contention, what is to be taken note in the instant case is that the Petitioner is before this Court against an order on interlocutory application passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Further, this Court at the first instance has directed notice to the Respondents instead of relegating the Petitioner to prefer an appeal and the Respondents have also appeared and opposed the petition. Considering the fact that the interlocutory application requires to be noticed, I am of the opinion that in the instant facts, this Court notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy can exercise its discretion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.