- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32573-DB WP No. 39228 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 39228 OF 2018 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: CHANDRA MOULI, S/O LATE B.G.ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O NO.81/5, II CROSS ROAD, MOUNT JOY (SRI KUMARSWAMY TEMPLE ROAD), HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SUNIL KUMAR P BANGARI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, A BODY CORPORATE ESTABLISHED UNDER, THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT “CHANDRAMUKHI” NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI AND ON OF ITS BRANCHES AT NO.75-76, COMMERCIAL STREET, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY CHIEF MANAGER, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, BANK STREET, KOTI, HYDERABAD. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32573-DB WP No. 39228 of 2018 2. M/S. MYSON TRADING AND MARKETING, A PROPRITARY CONCERN, HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUISESS AT NO.G-2, BRIGADE PARK VIEW, NO.4, B.P.WADIA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. BY ITS PROPRIETOR. 3. SAJEEV KURUP, S/O K.K.NARAYAN KURUP, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, MYSON TRADING AND MARKETING, R/O G-2, BRIGADE PARK VIEW, NO.4, B.P.WADIA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004. 4. M/S RC(INDIA)-A PROPRITARY CONCERN, NO.1277, 8TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN, LIC COLONY, JP NAGAR, I PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAJAGOPAL. 5. SMT.KEMPAMMA, W/O LATE B.G.ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, R/O NO.81/5, II CROSS ROAD, MOUNT JOY, (SRI KUMARASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD), HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 019. 6. SMT.ANNAPURNA, D/O B.G.ANNAIAH, W/O N.SHAMANNA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32573-DB WP No. 39228 of 2018 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, POST BOX NO.1470, DIERA-DUBAI, UNITED ARAB, EMIRATES. R5 AND R6 PRESENTLY R/AT: NO.133, DIAMOND ENCLAVES, CHOKKASANDRA VILLAGE, (NEAR BONE MILLS), YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.P.GOKUL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 14.01.2020, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENCED WITH, SRI.S.B.TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, SRI.K.B.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE OF DRAT AT CHENNAI IN RA NO.44/2015 DATED 02.08.2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS THE 50% LIABILITY FIXED ON THE PETITIONER, AND ALSO ON THE RESPONDENTS NO. 5 AND 6 JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32573-DB WP No. 39228 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (for short 'the DRAT') in RA.No.44/2015 on 02.08.2018, inasmuch as it fixes a liability against respondent Nos.4 to 7 therein, to the extent of 50% of the amount claimed by the respondent-Bank jointly and severally. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the Original Application (for short 'OA'), originally, the father of the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.4. The defendant No.4 had filed his written statement and as well as additional written statement denying the fact that he had stood as guarantor in respect of the loan advanced by the Bank in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that during pendency - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32573-DB WP No. 39228 of 2018 of the OA before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short 'the DRT'), respondent No.4 passed away and so defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 were substituted in his place. 4. It is stated that the DRT after considering the entire material on record, held that defendant No.5 (the petitioner herein), as well as defendant Nos.6 and 7 were not liable and directed that the outstanding amount of the Bank be recovered from the properties of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the respondent-Bank approached the DRAT at Chennai filing RA.No.44/2015, which appeal came to be partly allowed holding that the Presiding Officer of DRT had failed to appreciate the importance of execution of guarantee documents by the deceased (the defendant No.4, before the DRT). It was held that in such a situation the order challenged deserves modification. 5. The order passed by the DRT against respondent Nos.1 and 2 was upheld. However, it was stated that against respondent Nos.4 to 7, the OA should - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32573-DB WP No. 39228 of 2018 have been partly decreed. It was held that respondent Nos.4 to 7 would be liable for recovery of 50% of OA amount, jointly and severally, and the remaining amount and interest etc, will be realised from respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. A perusal of the array of parties appearing in the order of DRAT reflects that the respondent No.5 is stated to be Annaiah (since deceased). Respondent No.6 was Smt.Kempamma and respondent No.7 was Smt.Annapurana. Therefore, respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 were the legal representatives of respondent No.5, who was their father. 7. It is noted that the memo dated 27.10.2021 was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner and respondent No.6-Smt.Kempamma are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.5, who are already on record. Death Certificate of the deceased Smt.Kempamma is also enclosed with the aforesaid memo. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32573-DB WP No. 39228 of 2018 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Section 62 of the Contract Act, to contend that there was novation of the contract of guarantee and therefore, since it was done without the consent of the petitioner, he was not bound by the contract of guarantee. 9. With regard to the aspect of novation of the contract of guarantee, nothing has been demonstrated to prove the same. As a matter of fact, the facts appearing from the order of the DRT itself, reflect that the stand taken by the legal representatives of the deceased guarantor were wholly untenable in the eyes of law. 10. A perusal of the order of DRT dated 30.04.2009 reflects that, it was admitted by the legal representatives of defendant No.4 therein, that is the petitioner and others, regarding the creation of mortgage by their father that is defendant No.4, but no specific benefit was derived either by defendant No.4 or his legal representatives in this particular case (sic). It was further observed that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32573-DB WP No. 39228 of 2018 heirs of respondent No.4, specifically pleaded that they have not at all mortgaged the property but in some other connection their documents were with the applicant Bank, but the applicant Bank intentionally involved defendant No.4 as a party to the proceedings without returning those documents, which was given in some other connection to the Bank. It was therefore held that under the circumstances the applicant Bank failed to produce material evidence against defendant No.4 regarding creation of mortgage as security for bill discounting facilities availed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 from the Bank. 11. Given this observation and finding by the DRT, the appellate Tribunal was justified in observing that the Presiding Officer of the DRT had failed to appreciate the importance of execution of guarantee documents by the deceased (defendant No.4). It is trite that the legal representatives of the deceased party, cannot adopt a stand contrary to the stand of the original party. They are as a matter of fact bound by the statements of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32573-DB WP No. 39228 of 2018 concession made by their deceased predecessor. The fact that documents were submitted by the deceased predecessor of the petitioner to the Bank is not denied by the petitioner. 12. In this view of the matter, we find no material error, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order of the DRAT that is impugned in the present petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13