Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 850 (KAR)

M/S 3S POWER SYSTEMS v. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

WP/23928/2024 · 2026-02-11

Ashok S Kinagi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8340 WP No. 23928 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 23928 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. M/S 3S POWER SYSTEMS A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN NO C87/1, 10TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIRAL AREA, BENGALURU – 560 058. ALSO AT NO 41/2, 41/3, 3RD A CROSS, THIGALAPALYA MAIN ROAD, KEMPEGOWDA, INDUSTRIAL AREA 4TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BENGALURU – 560 058 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER. 2. SRI. S.K. SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DOB 06/06/1969, S/O SRI KRISHNE GOWDA, RESIDING AT No. 15, SAPTHAGIRI SUVARNA NAGAR, NEAR G M COTTAGE, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8340 WP No. 23928 of 2024 NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU – 560 073 ALSO AT No. 4, PUSKARANI, T P KAILASAM ROAD, SUVARNA NAGAR, NEAR H.M.T LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU – 560 073. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GURU PRASAD A, ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NO 15, 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BENGALURU - 560 058. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 28.06.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU IN O.A. NO. 654/2018 BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8340 WP No. 23928 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2024 passed in O.A.No.654/2018 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru, have filed this writ petition. There is an appeal remedy provided under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 2. The petitioners without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy filed this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. In view of proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RIKHAB CHAND JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA IN C.A.NO.6719 OF 2012 disposed off on 12.11.2025, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8340 WP No. 23928 of 2024 3. The liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order, if so advised within 30 days from today. 4. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB