- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:191-DB WP No. 20121 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 20121 OF 2019 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. DIVYA JYOTHI, W/O ACHUTHA REDDY, AGED 25 YEARS, 2. BHAVYASHREE W/O OM PRAKASH REDDY, AGED 26 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NO.82/82, AGARA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PUSHPAVATHI, D/O H RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.82/82, AGARA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 034. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KRISHNA KEERTHAN S., FOR SRI. R.MADHUSUDHANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, PANAJI BRANCH, MATHIAS PLAZA, 18, JUNE ROAD, PANAJI - GOA - 403 001. 2. M.G. MINES AND MINERALS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.GOPAL S/O MYSORE MADAPPA, Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:191-DB WP No. 20121 of 2019 23/3, GIRIYABHOVAI PLAZA, MYSORE - 570 011. 3. B. LAKSHMAN REDDY, S/O BALA REDDY, NO.82, SRI K V TEMPLE STREET, SHARJAPURA ROAD, AGARA, BANGALORE - 560 080. 4. M. VENKATESH, S/O MYSORE MADAPPA, 23/3, GIRIYABHOVAI PLAZA, MYSORE - 570 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-3 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 07.01.2025; R4 - SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI AIR SA 1/2019 DATED 08.04.2019, ANNEXURE - A IS ILLEGAL, VOID AND ARBITRARY AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) One Smt.Pushpavathi who happens to be the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioners vide Instrument dated 24.11.2018, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-F, is the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:191-DB WP No. 20121 of 2019 wife of 3rd respondent Mr.B.Lakshman Reddy. Petitioners are their daughters. Their father is stated to have abandoned the family after availing the subject loan by mortgaging the petition property in favour of the respondent-bank. The mortgage loan now outstanding in a sum of about rupees 1.5 crore was the subject matter of SARFAESI proceedings at the hands of DRT-II Bengaluru and later DRAT at Chennai. The said proceedings having culminated into adverse orders, this petition is filed invoking writ jurisdiction of this court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that the petition property was acquired by his clients by virtue of a registered gift deed executed by their mother on 24.09.2009 as the GPA Holder of their father ie., 3rd respondent herein; petitioners had got issued a public notice dated 15.02.2010 alerting the creditors not to deal with the subject property and despite that the respondent bank having taken the mortgage thereof had lent huge sum of money to their father; for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:191-DB WP No. 20121 of 2019 the fault of the lender bank, petitioners interest cannot be prejudiced; this aspect having not been duly considered by the DRT in S.A.274/2018, an adverse order was made on 06.12.2018; petitioners Appeal No.1/2019 came to be negatived by DRAT, Chennai vide order dated 08.04.2019 on the ground that the statutory requirement of making pre-deposit has not been complied with; DRAT failed to see that the petitioners are neither borrowers nor guarantors nor have they anything to do with the subject loan and therefore the requirement of making such a deposit was not applicable to them. 3. 3. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the bank resists the petition making submission in justification of the orders impugned in the petition; he contends that the subject property was auctioned for the recovery of outstanding loan and that none other than petitioners mother Smt.Pushpavathi who also happens to be their GPA Holder prosecuting this petition has bought the said property, being the highest bidder; right of appeal to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:191-DB WP No. 20121 of 2019 DRAT being conditioned u/s.18 of 2002 Act, dismissal of petitioners appeal on the ground of non-compliance of the said condition, cannot be faltered; the whole exercise is marred by fraud & duplicity and therefore constitutional court should be loathe to interfere. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned Sr.Panel Counsel appearing for the Bank that the requirement of making pre-deposit is a sine qua non for maintaining the appeal against the order of the DRT. This view gains support from the observations made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein one of us (KSDJ) was a member in DR.VIJAY MALLYA vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA1. This condition enacted in Sec.18 of the Act has an imperative terminology and therefore the requirement of making pre-deposit cannot 1 AIR 2019 KAR 23 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:191-DB WP No. 20121 of 2019 be dispensed with. The impugned order of the DRAT is accordingly structured and therefore cannot be faltered. 5. The contention as to fraud, fabrication & duplicity need not be much discussed since petitioners Civil Suit in O.S.No.1435/2016 is stated to be pending on the file of LXI Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore. Some aspects of Sec.52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are left undiscussed, lest the said suit be prejudiced by our discussion. We are also not expressing anything about the said suit proceeding. In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is. Very reluctantly we have declined to levy costs, on the insistence of learned counsel for the petitioners. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE BMV*/snb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2