- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33238-DB WP No. 11623 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 11623 OF 2017 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. AJAY KUMAR KHEMKA S/O LATE MURALIDHAR KHEMKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. USHA KHEMKA W/O AJAY KUMAR KHEMKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.201 & 201A, II FLOOR, KALPATHARU DOLLARS PARK SITE NO.66, AECS LAYOUT, SY NO.13, WARD NO.100, 3RD STAGE, GEDDALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 094. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAYANK HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.V. SUNDARA RAMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER HDFC BANK LTD CENTRAL OFFICE, GOLDEN TOWERS AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI BANGALORE-560 017. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. LEELA RANI H.P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33238-DB WP No. 11623 of 2017 THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI DATED 16.11.2016 IN I.A.NO.471/2015 IN A.I.R.462/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE A.I.R. 462/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present petition has been filed challenging the judgment and award dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the DRT'), Chennai in AIR No.462/2015. 2. The petitioners have availed two loan facilities from the Centurion Bank of Punjab later which stood amalgamated with HDFC Bank. Out of two loan facilities availed by the petitioners, one loan facility was in respect of the housing loan of Rs.30.44 lakhs which was availed by the petitioners on 26.09.2006. The said housing loan facility was to be discharged - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33238-DB WP No. 11623 of 2017 through equal monthly installments. Besides the aforesaid housing loan, the petitioners also availed cash credit loan of Rs.50,00,000/-. The petitioner had secured the loan by depositing the title deeds of the property bearing Flat No.201 measuring 1700 sq.ft. and Flat No.201-A measuring 1200 sq.ft., in all total 2900 sq. ft. in favour of the respondent - Bank. The petitioners did not make the repayment of the loan and thus, their loan accounts were classified NPA. 3. The respondent - Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 12.12.2009 for recovery of a sum of Rs.29.32 lakhs which was for the principal amount and notice for recovery of a sum of Rs.31.62 lakhs in respect of housing loan and another notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 29.12.2009 for second loan account of Rs.49.95 lakhs. Thus, the total liability in the month of December - 2009 was Rs.1.91 crores. Thereafter, the bank also issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 26.03.2010. 4. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid notices before the DRT. However, the DRT by order dated 04.07.2012 dismissed the SA No.365/2010 and affirmed the notice under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33238-DB WP No. 11623 of 2017 Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act issued by the respondent - Bank. The said order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the DRT in SA No.365/2010 came to be challenged before the DRT seeking review of the order. However, the DRT declined to review the order by its order dated 07.04.2014. The second review application was filed for seeking review of the order dated 07.04.2014 which was also declined by the DRT. Thereafter, the petitioners approached Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the DRAT') by filing an appeal in AIR No.462/2015 with delay of 32 days. 5. The Tribunal after considering the orders passed by the DRT was of the view that the finding of the DRT in respect of notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) were well reasoned and they do not require any interference. In otherwords, it was held that the DRAT does not have power under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, the DRAT has dismissed the appeal on the ground of merit as well as on the ground of limitation. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the impugned order of the DRT and order passed by the DRAT - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33238-DB WP No. 11623 of 2017 as well as the provisions of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. We do not find that DRAT has committed any error of law of jurisdiction which requires interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, decline to grant any indulgence to the petitioners at this distant point of time as much as the petitioners availed loans way back in the year 2006 and as on December – 2009 and the total liability against the petitioners was Rs.1.91 crores. We dismiss the writ petition leaving it to the bank to take appropriate measures for recovery of its dues against the petitioners. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46