Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51136 (KAR)

M/S. MAYA HOTELS PVT LTD v. REGISTRAR

WP/6820/2025 · 2025-10-14

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6820 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M/S. MAYA HOTELS PVT LTD REGISTERED UNDER COMPANYS ACT (NO. 08/10878 OF 1990-91), REP. BY MS THIRTHA KUMARASWAMY, 68 YEARS, (NO SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS CLAIMED) DIRECTOR NO. 52/1, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU- 560 001. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. S VENKATESHWARAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REGISTRAR DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2 4TH FLOOR BSNL BUILDING RAJBHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU 560 001 2. RECOVERY OFFICER -1 DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2 4TH FLOOR, BSNL BUILDING, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, SHANTHI NAGAR, NO.26, KH ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 027. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER THE ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ADHERE TO THE LAWS OF LAND IN CONDUCTING THE PUBLIC AUCTION TO GET A COMPETITIVE PRICE FOR THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND TO QUASH ANNEXURE- D DATED 23.01.2015 (SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO SOLE SINGLE BIDDER) WHICH IS INVALID, ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL NOT ENFORCEABLE BEFORE LAW., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking following prayer: a. To issue writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondents to adhere to the laws of land in conducting the Public auction to get a COMPETITIVE PRICE FOR THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY and To quash Annexure-D dated 23.01.2015 (Sale Certificate issued to Sole Single Bidder) which is invalid, illegal & unlawful not enforceable before law and b. As the matter is sub-judice cases pending before DRT as per the directions of this Hon'ble court in W.P No.38524/2017, Annexure-L and to adhere to the sec 52 & 54 of the Transfer of Property act relating to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 schedule property in line with Hon'ble Supreme court Judgements c. To direct the Respondents not to proceed further in the matter of transfer of property till disposal of this writ petition and to follow the directions as per the Hon'ble Apex court & High court of Karnataka Judgements highlighted in this case (Annexure-M & N) d. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and the petitioner to be entitled to, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner is the borrower who has availed the financial assistance from the bank on 09.08.2004. The bank issued the credit sanction facility. The petitioner availed term loan of Rs.2,38,00,000/- to take over the liability from Bank of India. The bank on 27.09.2004 further sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,60,00,000/-. The account of the petitioners was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 15.04.2006. The bank filed an application under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,52,16,682/- along with interest at the rate of 15.75%. The Debt Recovery Tribunal had allowed the application on 16.06.2009 and a recovery certificate was issued with a liberty to recover the same from the petitioner. On 04.09.2009 the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 Bank had initiated the execution proceedings. In the year 2010, the petitioner had filed an application to set aside the order dated 26.06.2009 which was dismissed with costs. The petitioner thereafter filed WP.No.613/2011. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court refused to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. 3. From 04.09.2009 till 29.05.2014, 14 attempts were made by the Recovery officer to put the property to sale. A sale proclamation was issued on 20.04.2014 by which auction was scheduled to be held on 30.05.2014. Thereafter an e- auction was held on 30.05.2014 and the respondent is a successful bidder. Petitioner filed WP.No.19760/2014 to quash the sale proclamation dated 20.04.2014. The aforesaid writ petition was partly allowed by an order dated 11.07.2014. It is observed that the petitioner would make payment of Rs.6.8 crores on 17.07.2014. Hence, the writ petition was allowed in part and the sale proclamation dated 20.04.2014 was quashed. It was further observed that if the petitioner fails to fulfill its promise to pay Rs.6.8 crores by 17.07.2014, the respondent/Recovery Officer was at liberty to issue of a fresh sale proclamation. Petitioner had failed to pay the amount - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 which was undertaken before the Court. As per the order dated 11.07.2014 in WP.No.19760/2014, the sale was set aside and the amount deposited was returned on 27.08.2014. Thereafter, for a period from 12.11.2014 to 22.12.2014, the Recovery Officer granted opportunities to the petitioners to make payment and to settle the matter. The petitioner did not settle the matter. The bank had conducted e-auction on 22.12.2023. The highest bidder had paid the amount on 05.01.2015. Petitioner had filed an appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The application that is filed seeking stay of proclamation of sale was rejected with costs of Rs.5,000/- on 16.01.2015. Thereafter, the sale was confirmed on 27.01.2015 and a sale certificate was issued on the same day. 4. The petitioner thereafter had filed WP.No.11220/2015 before this Court to quash the sale certificate dated 27.01.2015 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.03.2016. Petitioner again filed WP.No.536/2020. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.01.2020 by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 petitioner, thereupon preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai which was dismissed on 01.10.2020. Later, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing WP.No.14083/2020. The writ petition also came to be dismissed by order dated 17.11.2021. In the said order the division Bench of this Court has observed that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the sale has been held in violation of any provisions of law and that they had paid the entire amount under the OTS Scheme. The conduct of the petitioners has been contumacious and the petitioners by resorting to successive litigations have stalled the proceeding for recovery of the public dues successfully for a period from 2009 to 2014. Against this order the petitioner has filed SLP No.20666/2021 and later withdrawn the petition. Petitioner has also filed a review petition in RP.No.71/2022 in WP.No.14083/2020 which came to be dismissed. The division Bench has observed that the order of which review is sought is neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record nor any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is pending before the DRT and they had approached the DRT as per the orders passed in the writ petition by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. When the matter is pending consideration, at this point of time the bank cannot give effect to the sale. In this writ petition they have questioned the very sale certificate which is issued in the year 2015 and which has been assailed in several writ petitions filed before this Court. It is submitted that unless an order of status quo is granted by this Court pending further orders by the DRT, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a fraud played by the bank. They have issued the sale certificate contrary to the provisions of the act. On all these grounds, it is submitted that till the orders are passed by DRT, Bank cannot give effect to the sale. It is submitted that they have mentioned the matter before the DRT and the DRT has failed to take up this matter as it has no time to take up the matter. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court seeking to set aside the sale certificate and not give effect to the sale till the orders are passed by the DRT. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank submits that right from the year 2008 till now on various grounds by litigating before several forums, the petitioner could successfully stall the proceedings. It is submitted that the sale certificate dated 23.01.2015 is staring at the petitioner and no orders are passed granting stay by any of the forums he approached. Hence, the Bank is at liberty to execute the same. It is submitted that though the petitioner is unsuccessful before several forums again he has come up before this Court. He has not sought for stay before the DRT and he has been proceeding with the matter, now seeking a status quo before this Court is not permissible and the conduct of the petitioner is very clear from the fact that they have not made the bank as the party to these proceedings. It is submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The litigation had started in the year 2008. In the preceding paragraphs, this Court has discussed about several writ petitions that are filed from the DRT till the Supreme Court. Sale certificate dated 23.01.2015 is impugned before this Court which is not interfered or stayed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 either by this Court or Hon'ble Apex Court or by the DRT-DRAT and the DRT proceedings are pending. The petitioner had never sought for an interim order from the DRT. In the earlier litigation the sale certificate was questioned. A division Bench of this Court has clearly observed that the petitioner could not make out any ground why the sale certificate has to be set aside and what are the infirmities in issuing the sale certificate, under which law and what is the violation and what are the provisions that are violated. When such an order has attained finality and the SLP that is filed by the petitioner is withdrawn and the review filed by them is dismissed, on all these counts the petitioner cannot come before this Court questioning the sale certificate. The second ground is when the matter is pending before the DRT, he has not sought for any of the interim orders and according to the petitioner interim order though sought, so far orders are not passed. In litigation of this nature which is pending from the year 2009 and a sale certificate that is issued in the year 2015, in the year 2025 there cannot be any order from this Court. The bank was not made a party to these proceedings. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the bank, it speaks volumes - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 about the conduct of the petitioner and the intention of the petitioner in not making the bank a party to these proceedings. This is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. In this manner, if the writ petitions are entertained there is no purpose of constituting a separate Tribunal for recovery of the amounts and this is one classic case where the litigant could file successive petitions from 2014 and stalled the proceedings. Petitioner without filing an application, making an oral submission before the DRAT and submitting before this Court that the DRAT has no time and this Court has to interfere with the sale certificate of 2015 and grant a status quo, such a prayer cannot be entertained. 9. Looking at the manner in which petitioner has approached the Court with successive petitions is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. Access to justice does not include a right to misuse the justice delivery system. It has been consistently held that litigation filed with an ulterior motive deserves to be dismissed with costs. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41014 WP No. 6820 of 2025 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority. All pending I.As shall also stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10