- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12405 OF 2020 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK JAYANAGAR BRANCH NO.40TH CROSS JUNCTION, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER-ARM, BANGALORE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.C.RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S SVS CONSULTANTS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. S.V. SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS 2. MR. S.V. SRINIVASA RAO S/O LATE VENKATARAMIAH MAJOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 RESIDING AT NO. 16 19TH A CROSS, 18TH MAIN ROAD 5TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR (NARASIMHA GARDENS-CORPN WARD NO.187) BANGALORE-560078 3. RECOVERY OFFICER DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II NO.4, HAYES ROAD, SHANTALA NAGAR, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE-560025 …RESPONDENTS (BY S.V.SRINIVASA RAO, (PARTY-IN-PERSON); SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2020 AT ANNEXURE-R PASSED IN T.R.C. NO.2165/2017 IN OA NO.1072/1997 (DCP NO.1534/2001) BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE EXTENT THAT IMPOSES THE IMPUGNED DIRECTIONS ON PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner - bank has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.08.2020 passed in T.R.C.No.2165/2017 in OA No.1072/1997 (DCP No.1534/2001) by the respondent No.3 to the extent of imposing directions on the petitioner. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached it for a loan for the purpose of purchasing a Kalyan Mantap. Accordingly, it sanctioned a term - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 loan of Rs.40,00,000/-, cash credit facility of Rs.15,00,000/- on 06.09.1994. The respondent No.2 and his wife stood as guarantors to the loan sanctioned. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought for an additional loan of Rs.45,00,000/- for purchase of Kalyan Mantap. The petitioner offered overdraft facility on the current account instead of another term loan. Thereafter, the petitioner allowed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to overdraw the current account from time to time and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 overdrew the account to an extent of Rs.25,00,766.38/-. Since the respondents did not repay the loan, a notice was caused on 18.08.1997 to repay the loan with interest. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 however did not repay the loan which compelled the petitioner to file O.A.No.1072/1997 for recovery of a sum of Rs.66,76,472.68/- being the principal amount. (ii) After contest, the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed a final order dated 29.09.2000 and a recovery certificate was issued on 15.11.2001. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to repay the outstanding amount as per the recovery certificate, but filed series of petitions before this Court which were all dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 (iii) The petitioner then enforced the recovery certificate by issuing an auction notice to sell the mortgaged asset. The auction was held on 03.04.2002 whereat the petitioner was declared as a purchaser and a sale certificate dated 30.03.2007 was issued in favour of the petitioner and the sale was confirmed. The respondent No.2 filed W.P.No.8221/2007 challenging the confirmation of sale, which was dismissed in terms of an order dated 23.06.2008. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed W.A.Nos.1170/2008 and 1298/2008. The writ appeals were allowed vide order dated 09.12.2009 and the sale deed was set aside on the ground that the recovery officer ought to have heard the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before confirming the sale. (iv) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 then filed URA No.29/2008 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai against the final order of the tribunal allowing the claim of the petitioner. In the said proceedings, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A.No.1547/2008 to wave off the mandatory pre-deposit. The appellate tribunal directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in terms of an order dated 06.11.2008 to deposit Rs.2,50,00,000/- in two equal installments on or before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 08.12.2008 and 08.01.2009 failing which, the appeal would stand dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed W.P.No.15096/2008 before this Court which was dismissed in terms of an order dated 09.11.2009. They thereafter filed R.P.No.556/2009 to review the order passed in W.P.No.15096/2008 which was dismissed on 22.01.2010. They made another attempt to review the order passed in W.P.No.15096/2008 in R.P.No.141/2010 which too was dismissed on 13.08.2010. They filed Misc. Civil. No.1488/2010 to review the order passed in R.P.No.141/2010 which was also dismissed on 29.10.2010. They thereafter filed SLP No.32191/2015 against the order passed in W.P.No.15096/2008. The Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the special leave petition vide order dated 18.07.2016 and directed that the possession of the mortgaged property shall remain with the recovery officer and will not be auctioned. It also waived off the pre-deposit before the appellate tribunal. (v) The petitioner contends that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the possession of the secured asset is handed over to the recovery officer. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 petitioner is providing security to guard the mortgaged asset and has incurred huge cost. (vi) The petitioner contends that it filed an application on 22.11.2011 before the respondent No.3 for issuance of a fresh sale certificate in view of the earlier sale certificate being set aside. The said proceedings was numbered as DCP 1534 in O.A.No.1072/1997. After affording an opportunity to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the tribunal vide order dated 05.10.2012 ordered for issuance of a fresh sale certificate. However, the recovery officer did not issue the certificate. The petitioner was therefore constrained to file W.P.No.25479/2013 for a direction to the recovery officer to issue a fresh sale certificate. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 also filed W.P.No.17856/2010 for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the petitioner and the recovery officer to submit a copy of the mahazar, list of inventories and video footages in relation to movables in the mortgaged property, when the possession of the same was taken. The said writ petition is said to be pending. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an appeal in R.A.No.28/2016 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the final order dated 29.09.2000 passed by the tribunal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 in O.A.No.1072/1997. The appeal was allowed in part and the appellate tribunal reduced the rate of interest to 12% per annum instead of interest at 20.75% per annum. The same is now challenged before this Court in W.P.No.31379/2017 which is pending. (vii) The petitioner contends that the aforesaid facts would indicate that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not inclined to repay the outstanding amount, but have initiated several proceedings from time to time to keep the litigation alive. The petitioner contends that as on 14.10.2020, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,26,47,519/-. (viii) The petitioner contends that when things stood thus, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the respondent No.3 and filed a memo dated 07.02.2020 in DCP 1534 in O.A.No.1072/1997 seeking various reliefs. On 20.05.2020 they filed another memo before the respondent No.3 seeking as many as 23 reliefs. These memos were opposed by the petitioner and a rejoinder to the same was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 (ix) The petitioner contends that though the respondent No.3 did not have jurisdiction to entertain the memo, he while rejecting the memo, issued various directions to the petitioner namely: (i) To file a quarterly basis the status of the mortgaged property; (ii) To undertake surprise checks and maintain record of such checks conducted by the petitioner at the mortgaged property; (iii) Feasibility of installing CCTV camera at the mortgaged property; (iv) Report regarding unauthorized structure in the mortgaged property. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 was functus officio and he could not have issued the directions more particularly, when the recovery certificate is already issued by the tribunal which had attained finality before the appellate tribunal and is pending before this Court. It is contended that the directions issued in terms of the impugned order to the petitioner - bank is therefore, beyond the authority of the respondent No.3 and are liable to be set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 3. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent No.3 having once rejected the memos filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, could not have issued any directions more particularly, the ones mentioned above, as he was functus officio after the tribunal passed a final order dated 29.09.2020 which was confirmed by the debt recovery appellate tribunal. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. S.N.Goyal - (2008) 8 SCC 92 and contends that the possession of the secured asset is handed over to the recovery officer and therefore, it is for him to take care of the secured asset and he cannot compel the petitioner to comply with the directions mentioned above. 4. The respondent No.2 who has appeared in-person submitted that the correctness of the recovery certificate issued by the tribunal is pending consideration before this Court. He has filed an elaborate statement of objections, a perusal of which is wholly unnecessary. He however, contends that the respondent No.3 has issued very innocuous directions which he could not otherwise do in the course of his duties as he was - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 handed over the secured asset pursuant to the order passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. He therefore, contends that the impugned order in so far as it relates to directions issued by the respondent No.3 is not justiciable and therefore the petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. It is not in dispute that the debt recovery tribunal had passed a final order dated 29.09.2000 followed by a recovery certificate. It is also not in dispute that the same was challenged before the appellate tribunal which had allowed the appeal in-part and reduced the rate of interest. The issue is now questioned before this Court in W.P.No.31379/2017. It is not in dispute that the possession of the secured asset is handed over to the recovery officer pursuant to the directions issued by the division bench of this Court in W.A.No.1170/2008 c/w 1298/2008 and Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 32191- 194/2015. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 shows that though the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed two memos requesting the respondent No.3 to pass various orders, the respondent No.3 rejected both the memos. However, he as the custodian of the mortgaged asset, had directed the petitioner to comply the following directions: (i) The petitioner to oversee its security arrangements and to ensure that there is no trespass and no unauthorised entry/use by any person whomsoever or whatsoever nature in the mortgaged property; (ii) To file a memo before him in regard to the current status on periodical basis (preferably in three months period) till further orders and to undertake regular and surprise checks on the security personnel and the schedule property; (iii) A record of such checks to be maintained with the petitioner and such entry in the register to be signed by the petitioner as well as the security person on duty at that time. (iv) The petitioner to ensure that the seal on all the locks of the building is intact and no tampering is done on the seal. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 (v) The quarterly report to include the details of regular and surprise checks carried out by the petitioner. If any untoward incident is noticed or reported, the appropriate authorities may be informed to take immediate action under intimation to recovery officer. (vi) To report regarding feasibility of installing a CCTV camera in the premises and to examine change of security agency if circumstances so warrants; (vii) The petitioner to file a memo whether any un- authorised construction is made in the schedule property or not; (viii) The petitioner to place a board stating that the secured asset is in the possession of the Recovery Officer - 2, Debt Recovery Tribunal - 2, Bengaluru and the existing board to be removed and a confirmation in this regard to be filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 8. It is apparent that the above directions were not issued on the memo filed by the petitioners but were administrative instructions issued by the respondent No.3 to ensure the safe keep of the property of the petitioner. These - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33403 WP No. 12405 of 2020 directions could have been issued in the ordinary course by the respondent No.3, as he had no means to ensure safe keep of the property, which was handed over to his custody. He had to rely upon the petitioner to ensure the safe keep of the secured asset. Thus, the directions issued to the petitioner is in the best interest of the petitioner and to allay fears of respondent No.2 who has expressed fears of his property being misused for illegal activities. 9. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 became functus officio and therefore, he could not have issued the directions is misplaced as these directions were administrative instructions issued by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner - bank in order to maintain the property mortgaged to it by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no error in the impugned directions issued by the respondent No.3 warranting interference. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1