- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 107642 OF 2024 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, GUTTAL BRANCH, GUTTAL TALUK, HAVERI-581 108. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, NAGARKAR LIBRARY COMPLEX, SRI SIDDAPPA KAMBALI ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 020. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CORPORATE OFFICE, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.RAMDAS, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI AND SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. NETRAVATHI WIFE OF BASAPPA CHIKKANNAVAR, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAPURA TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 108. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 2. BASAPPA S/O GUDAPPA CHIKKANNAVAR, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAPURA TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 108. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH R.BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.S.Ramdas., Senior counsel for Sri.Suresh S.Gandhi, on behalf of the petitioners appeared in person. Sri.Prakash R.Badiger, counsel for Sri.M.R.Hirematad, on behalf of the respondents appeared through video conferencing. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a) Call for the records in Execution Application No.31/2024 before the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Haveri under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging non-compliance of award dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 12.01.2023 and issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders dated 05.10.2024 and 12.12.2024 passed in Execution Petition Application No.31/2024 before the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Haveri (part of Annexure-G) and all action taken pursuant thereto. b) Further, direct closure of the proceedings in Execution Application No.31/2024 before the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Haveri by entering the execution petition fully satisfied. 3. The short facts are these: On 09.11.2015, the respondents availed a loan bearing No.3948127485 for Rs.7,32,000/- by mortgaging their property situated at Basapura Village, Haveri from the Central Bank of India. On 27.08.2018, the respondents’ loan account was declared as a Non-Performing Asset. Thereafter, the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for the recovery of the loan amount. During the pendency of the proceedings, i.e., in 2021, the respondents approached the Bank to close the NPA Loan Account. On 03.03.2021, the loan account was closed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 by the respondents under the One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) by paying a sum of Rs.4,15,500/-. As the matter stood thus, the respondents filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum Commission, Haveri in C.C.No.47/2022. The District Commission, Haveri vide order dated 12.01.2023 partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to remove the remark stated as “Suit Filed” with respect to the aforesaid loan account from the complainants’ CIBIL Report within thirty days and directed the petitioners to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards deficiency of services and mental and physical agony. Upon the settlement through OTS Scheme, the Bank communicated the same to the CIBIL Authorities. Since the loan account was settled through OTS and consumer case was initiated, the remark against loan account was retained by the CIBIL Authorities. However, as per the award dated:12.01.2023, the Bank communicated that the remark against the aforesaid loan account of the respondents to the CIBIL Authorities must be removed. Accordingly, the remark “Suit Filed” was removed and changed to ‘Settled’ during the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 pendency of the consumer complaint. The Bank also paid compensation awarded to the respondents and complied with the award dated:12.01.2023. Strangely, the respondents filed an Execution Application in No.31/2024 alleging non-compliance of the award dated:12.01.2023 by the Bank. The respondents contended that the remark “Suit Filed” has been changed by the Bank to ‘Settled’. Taking cognizance of the petition and upon insistence by the respondents, the District Commission issued a non- bailable warrant against the petitioners. Petitioners 1 and 2 had to execute personal bonds to get the non-bailable warrant recalled. The matter was posted for taking further action. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned proceedings and the orders dated 05.10.2024 and 12.12.2024 (part of Annexure-G) are ex-facie, arbitrary, and contrary to the law and hence the same may be quashed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 Next, he submits that the petitioners have complied with the order/award dated 12.01.2023 and hence the impugned orders hold no water. A further submission is made that as per the records before the District Commission, the petitioners have paid Rs.60,000/- as per the award dated 12.01.2023. The respondents have also acknowledged the receipt of the same. It is also contended that after the order of the District Commission, the Bank communicated to the CIBIL for the removal of the remark “Suit Filed” and accordingly the CIBIL has removed the remark “Suit Filed” and entered it as “Settled”. Senior counsel vehemently argued that when the CIBIL has removed the remark “Suit Filed” and entered as “Settled”, the question of filing the execution petition does not arise. Senior counsel vehemently contends that the functionaries of the Bank were made party, however, the Bank was not a party; the petitioners had brought to the notice of the Executing Court about the compliance of the award - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 dated:12.01.2023, however, the Court erroneously went ahead with the matter and issued NBW against the petitioners. Lastly, the Senior counsel, submitted that viewed from any angle the action on the part of the Executing Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, and therefore, he submitted that the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. To substantiate his contentions, Senior counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. FATHIMA MARRY TR V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 7332. 2. MD.EKRAM V/S REGIONAL MANAGER, R.B.I., BHUBANESWAR AND ANOTHER in W.P.(C) NO.27982 OF 2022. Sri.Prakash R.Badiger., counsel justified the action on the part of the respondents. In presenting his arguments, counsel strenuously urged that the loan account was closed by the respondents under the One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS), however, there was a remark as “Suit Filed”. He argued by saying that the District Commission issued a direction to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 comply with the removal of the remark “Suit Filed” within 30 days. However, removal was not done within 30 days. Counsel vehemently contended that the endorsement by the CIBIL as “Settled” is also not correct. He submits that the CIBIL ought to have endorsed it as ‘closed’ instead of ‘settled’. Therefore, he justified the action of the respondents in initiating the execution proceedings against the functionaries of the Bank. Lastly, he submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 6. The short point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the execution petition filed by the respondents is maintainable?” 7. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The short controversy is about the removal of the remark “Suit Filed”. Suffice it to note that the loan account was closed by the respondents under the One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS). It is significant to note that - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 respondents were aware of the closure of their accounts. Strangely, they initiated proceedings before the District Commission against the functionaries of the Bank. The Bank was not a party. Taking note of the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the removal of the remark “Suit Filed” within thirty days. The settlement through OTS Scheme was communicated to the CIBIL Authorities. A consumer case was initiated by the respondents, the remark against their loan account was retained by the CIBIL Authorities. However, after the communication by the Bank, the remark “Suit Filed” was removed and changed to ‘Settled’. The grievance of the respondents is about the change of remark ‘Settled’. The respondents contended that the CIBIL ought to have changed the remarks to ‘Closed’. In this Court also they have adhered to the said contention. I decline to accept the said contention. The reason is apparent. As per Rules of CIBIL that once a loan becomes an NPA and is settled under an OTS Scheme, the loan is classified as ‘Settled’. Hence, the petitioners have no role to play in the CIBIL reporting. The authority concerned cannot act according to the whims and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 fancies of the respondents. I may venture to say that the Executing Court has failed to have regard to the relevant consideration and disregarded the relevant matters. There is due compliance of the order and there is nothing more to be complied with by the Bank. Hence the Execution Court could not have entertained the petition filed by the respondents against the functionaries of the Bank. In my view, the execution petition itself is not maintainable. For the reasons stated above, the execution petition filed by the respondents is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners has cited several cases referred to Supra, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each case turns on its facts. The present case is also tested in light of the aforesaid decision and order. 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The orders dated 05.10.2024 and 12.12.2024 passed in Execution Petition Application No.31/2024 on the file of District Consumer Redressal Commission, Haveri (part of Annexure-G) are quashed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4829 WP No. 107642 of 2024 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE CLK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 51