- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18845 OF 2023 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI. ABDUL WAHAB, S/O. LATE SRI. HUSSAIN PEERAN, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, APARTMENT NO.1-A, 1ST FLOOR, THE COLONNADE APARTMENT, NO.22, BENSON TOWN "A" CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU - 560046. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVAN. V, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023 STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, NO.61, 4TH FLOOR, RESIDENCY PLAZA RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRAKANT PATIL. K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II BENGALURU IN TA NO. 149/2017 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing/setting aside the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Bengaluru in TA No.149/2017 (Annexure-A). (b) Issue such other orders or writs or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity." 2. The facts of the case are that the company has availed the loan from the respondent/bank and the petitioner is the personal guarantor for the said amount. The outstanding amount to the bank as on 07.09.2011 was Rs.41.15 Crores after the account of the company became NPA in the month of August 2011. It is stated that on 26.07.2012, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent/bank. On 30.09.2013, the bank has recovered an amount of Rs.1 Crore plus accrued interest of Rs.27,86,696/-. The company has executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 21.01.2014 to dispose of the properties including plant and machinery of the company. The purpose of MOU was that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023 payments that were to be received by the company were to be repaid to respondent/bank as well as other sundry and unsecured creditors by reconciling the accounts. In spite of the request made by the company for additional time for repaying the debts, the respondent/bank pressurized the company to clear the dues at the earliest. The company had also sought for amicable settlement under One time settlement (OTS) vide email dated 10.06.2015. However, the respondent/bank had refused the same. The bank had initiated the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.06.2023, the DRT had allowed the application filed by the bank and allowed the bank to recover from defendant Nos.1 to 4 jointly an amount of Rs.69,44,94,879.99/-. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2023, when he had filed an application to reopen the case and recall the bank for further cross-examination, the Tribunal without considering the said application, had allowed the TA. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein, who is one of the guarantor is before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a reasonable opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner/guarantor to cross examine the bank official as they have the personal knowledge pertaining to the case. This application was filed on 21.04.2023. The order impugned came to be passed on 07.06.2023. It is submitted that in respect of the very same proceedings, earlier when the Debt Recovery Tribunal had passed the order in a speedy manner without considering the contentions, the company had filed W.P.Nos.35865/2015 and 35938/2015 and by order dated 19.10.2016, the matters were remanded back to the Tribunal. It is submitted that in the present case, in the interest of justice, the order impugned may be set aside and an opportunity may be given to the guarantor by reopening the case to cross examine the bank. Alternatively, another submission is also made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that against an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, remedy is available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach the DRAT and if the liberty is granted, the petitioner will approach the DRAT. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023 4. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The OA was filed in the year 2014 and the TA is numbered as 149/2017. The order is passed in the year 2023. The recovery proceedings are initiated in the year 2011 and this writ petition is pending before this Court from the year 2023. The only submission that is made before this Court is that the order under challenge is to be set aside and he may be permitted to cross-examine the officer of the bank. This Court had perused the application that is filed along with the affidavit before the Tribunal seeking re- open and re-call. That application do not disclose any reason, on why he wants to cross examine the bank. On the face of it, it appears that it is nothing but the delay tactics on the part of the petitioner. The whole purpose of constituting Tribunals is that the debts due to banks and financial institutions are recovered in a speedy manner. The manner in which this case is proceeding, it appears that the said purpose is not achieved and that apart, the second submission of going before - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22317 WP No. 18845 of 2023 the DRAT, this Court is not inclined to grant such liberty to the petitioner as the matter is pending since last three years before this Court and this Court having perused the order impugned and the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is of the view that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal is a well considered one and requires no interference from this Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20