- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 30932 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. C. J. SEBASTIAN S/O LATE C. JAYACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.62/094/76-4, CHENGAIAH COMPOUND, 30TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, TILAK NAGAR, JAYANAGAR, WARD NO.62, DIVISION 35, BENGALURU - 560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED COMPANIES ACT 1956, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 507, DALAMAL HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 55-56, FREE PRESS HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021, MR. RAJA PAUL V.P. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 2. M/S. CONCORD CHEMICALS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.28, ESPLANADE, 160, D.N ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND MANAGING PARTNERS. 3. SRI. MOHAMMED. P.HUSAINI PARTNER OF M/S. CONCORD CHEMICALS 28, ESPLANADE, 160, D.N ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI. 4. SRI. KANNAN. Y. DESAI PARTNER OF M/S. CONCORD CHEMICALS 28, ESPLANADE, 160, D.N ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI. 5. M/S. ANIL OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD., PARTNER OF M/S. CONCORD CHEMICALS NO.6, SHEEL CHAMBERS, 10, CAWASJI PATEL STREET, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001. 6. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ALLAHABAD BANK, JAYANAGAR BRANCH, NO. 1540, 23RD MAIN, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041. 7. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ALLAHABAD BANK, HEAD OFFICE, NO.2, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001. 8. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ALLAHABAD BANK, KALBADEVI BRANCH, NO.635, MISTRY BUILDING, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 J.S.S ROAD, DHOBI TALAO, MUMBAI - 400 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NARAYANA SHENOY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CMM AT BENGALURU PASSED IN C.MISC. NO. 11432/2015 DATED 24/06/2016, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANN-D AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, appearing for the 1st respondent Assets Reconstruction Company, has drawn the attention of this Court to memo dated 29.01.2025 filed before this Court on 01.02.2025 and submits that complete details of all the proceedings initiated by the petitioner and his family members and tenants have been furnished along with the memo. It is pointed out that the petitioner, along with his sister Jansy, filed writ petition Nos.42868/2011 and 42869/2011 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 challenging the possession notice dated 21.06.2011. The writ petition was disposed of in view of the availability of an alternative remedy to the petitioner, with liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within four weeks. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the loan account of petitioner’s father, who was the borrower/guarantor, was declared a non-performing asset in the year 2011. From 2011, till date the petitioner along with his family members and tenants, have dodged the recovery proceedings initiated at the hands of the 1st respondent. 2. It is submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner, along with another sister, filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal I.R.Nos.3267/2011 and 3268/2011. However, the same came to be dismissed on 22.04.2014. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner along with his sister before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. However, since the statutory deposit were not made by the appellants, the appeals were not entertained. Once again, three separate - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 writ petitions were filed in WP.Nos.50863/2016, 52690/2016 and 52691/2016 at the hands of the petitioner and his two sisters. All the three writ petitions were again dismissed as not maintainable on various dates, in the year 2020 and 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.2896/2017, his two sisters filed O.S.Nos.2934/2017 and 2892/2017 seeking a permanent injunction against the 1st respondent. All three plaints were rejected on 20.04.2023. Aggrieved by the rejection of the plaints, the petitioner herein filed RFA.No.1591/2023, while the other sisters filed RFA.Nos.1003/2023 and 1592/2023. There were two more suits filed, and since both the plaints were rejected, two more RFAs were also filed. Thereafter, five suits were filed at the hands of the four tenants in the year 2023, and all four suits were dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed one more suit in O.S.No.3004/2024 seeking a declaration. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 3. Learned Senior Counsel points to Annexure-R23 filed along with the statement of objections, which is an affidavit filed by the petitioner in the Regular First Appeals, on 14.03.2024 undertaking to pay Rs.10 Crores (Rupees Ten Crores) to the 1st respondent on or before 15.04.2024. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 16.04.2024 in the said RFAs took note of the undertaking given by the petitioner and the non-compliance of the undertaking given before this Court and consequently vacated all the peremptory orders and interim orders granted by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel submits that thereafter this writ petition has been filed at the hands of the petitioner, once again seeking to set aside the order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.11432/2015 dated 24.06. 2016. 4. Learned Senior Counsel draws the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 reported in AIR 1994 SC 853, where it was held that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court must come with clean hands. It was therefore held that the Apex Court is constrained to say that more often than not, the process of the Court is being abused by property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons, and they find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. It is also pointed out from the decision in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, where it was held that in the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants have cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means of achieving their goals. It was therefore directed that in order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the Courts have from time to time evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that here is a deserving case where this Court should impose exemplary costs on the petitioner and ensure that no further proceedings are initiated at the hands of the petitioner either before this Court or any other forum, having regard to the number of cases already filed by the petitioner along with his sisters and the tenants, thereby preventing the 1st respondent from recovering the outstanding loan amount along with interest from the year 2011. It is submitted that the outstanding loan amount along with interest may be more than Rs.54 Crores and the 1st respondent is unable to execute the orders passed by the competent Court and recover the loan amount. 5. Learned Cousnel Sri.N.R.Naik, appearing for the petitioner, seeks to contend that the petitioner is not the borrower at the hands of the 1st respondent. It is sought to be contended that although there was a partition in the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 family, in terms of the registered sale deed dated 04.05.2000 and various portions of the mortgaged property fell to the share of the petitioner and his sisters, nevertheless, the petitioner's father, Sri. C. Jayachandra, mortgaged the property for the benefit of the 2nd respondent with Allahabad Bank under the deed of simple mortgage executed on 23.03.2010, long after the partition deed dated 04.05.2000. It is sought to be contended that the petitioner’s father, Sri.C.Jayachandra, had no right to mortgage the property, which did not belong to him. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is trying to protect his rightful property. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the chronology of events along with the number of cases filed by the petitioner along with his sisters and tenants are clearly described. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 concealed all the prior proceedings initiated at his hands and on that ground alone, the writ petition is required to be dismissed. Further, having regard to the decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel, this Court is also of the opinion that this is a classic case of how a borrower/guarantor or a person claiming not to have mortgaged the property has knocked on the doors of this Court as well as the Debts Recovery Tribunal and has utterly failed. That being the position, this Court cannot keep on entertaining such petitions at the hands of the petitioner herein or his sisters. The petitioner had also given a clear undertaking before this Court in the Regular First Appeal that he would deposit Rs.10 Crores within a stipulated time. However, the petitioner has failed to comply with the undertaking given before this Court and consequently, interim orders granted by this Court have been vacated. 7. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition requires to be dismissed - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6287 WP No. 30932 of 2024 without going into the merits of the matter. In order to ensure that the petitioner does not attempt to file one more writ petition or any other proceedings on the same cause of action, this Court is also constrained to impose exemplary costs on the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed while imposing costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on the petitioner, payable to the 'Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund' within a period of four weeks from today. Acknowledgment for having paid the cost shall be filed before this Court. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not file any other writ petition before this Court where measures are taken by the respondent Bank for recovery of its dues. Order accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16