- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30100 WP No. 14962 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14962 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. DEVIDAS B RANGADAL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE BHALACHANDRA RAO RANGADAL, 2. GIRISH B RANGADAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE BHALACHANDRA RAO RANGADAL, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: RICE AND GENERAL MERCHANT, H.NO.4-866, SANDAL GALLI, DARGA ROAD, KULBURGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. AFREEN BEGUM, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJENDRA M.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMINA BANK NEHRU GUNJ BRANCH, KULBURGI, KALBURGI TALUK AND DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SENIOR MANAGER 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER-II DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, JEEVAN MANGAL BUILDING (2ND FLOOR) NO.4, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HEMANTH R. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RUKKOJI RAO H.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30100 WP No. 14962 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY DRT-II, BENGALURU ON 15.09.2018 IN T.A.NO.966/2017 (OA NO.658/2016-DRT-1) VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order dated 15.09.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal - II, Bengaluru, in T.A.No.966/2017 (O.A.No.658/2016-DRT-1). 2. When it was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and the only remedy is to approach the Appellate Tribunal, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order at Annexure - A is now challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Diary No.1632/2019 in Miscellaneous Appeal. She contends that the said Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for non-service of proof of service of notice to the respondent - bank. She however, contends that during the pendency of this writ petition, a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty One Lakhs only) is paid to the respondent No.1 - bank as per One Time Settlement. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30100 WP No. 14962 of 2022 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - bank however contends that there is no One Time Settlement and that the amount paid by the petitioners was at their own risk. 4. Be that as it may, since the petitioners contend that they have challenged the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Annexure - A before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Diary No.1632/2019, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioners are reopening or restoring Diary No.1632/2019, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law and while doing so, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall also take into account that the petitioners have paid Rs.41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty One Lakhs only) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18