1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.51939/2013 & WRIT PETITION NOS.52[SECTION]5-52[SECTION]7/2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 36, SAROJINI DEVI ROAD, SECUNDERABAD-500003 AND ITS OFFICE AT SP-3, DEVELOPED PLOT, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI-600032. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. PETITIONER (BY SRI K G RAGHAVAN, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI C M POONACHA) AND: 1. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANGALORE RURAL, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER ANDHRA BANK, SULTAN BAZAR BRANCH, HYDERABAD-500001. 3. ANDHRA BANK SULTAN BAZAR BRANCH, HYDERABAD-500001. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H V MANJUNATH, AGA. FOR R1 SRI A KUMARVEL & SRI P CHANDRASHEKAR CHETTY, ADVS. FOR R2 AND R3) 2 THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.17.9.2013 VIDE ANNEX-L PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO HAND OVER/RESTORE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES TO THE PETITIONER PENDING DISPOSAL OF S.A.NO. (I.R.) 3480/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District which is impugned at Annexure-L to the petitions. The petitioner is also seeking for a direction to the respondents to handover/restore actual physical possession of the schedule properties to the petitioner pending disposal of [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore.
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents.
3. From the very prayer made in the writ petitions, it is seen that being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT], the petitioner is already before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in [CASE NUMBER]. Therefore, in such circumstance, going into the merits of the contention with regard to the validity or otherwise of the order dated 17.09.2013 would not arise in these petitions. As such, all contentions by both sides could be urged in the appeal which is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
4. At this stage, the learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner with reference to prayer (b) made in the petitions would submit that since the petitioner is a going concern and has employed more than 200 employees, interim order to restore the actual physical possession is what was intended in the instant petitions. In my opinion, considering the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] and in the case of [PRECEDENT] has held that in respect of the proceedings under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act, the appropriate remedy would be an appeal under [SECTION] and in such appeal, the restoration of possession is also permissible. If the main relief of restoration of possession is available to be granted by the Tribunal, certainly such interim direction in aid of the final relief also could be considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the interim orders can be granted in appeals under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act. In the instant case, in any event since the petitioner is also referring to the fact that they have employed more than 200 people and that is one of the circumstances under which restoration of physical possession is being sought, this aspect of the matter also could be urged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
5. In the above circumstance, no doubt it would have been appropriate for this Court to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in [CASE NUMBER] itself within a time frame, however, this Court is also mindful of the fact that there are several matters pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Debts Recovery Tribunal would have to adjust its board to dispose of the appeal itself. Hence, insofar as disposing of the appeal, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall fix its own schedule for disposal and dispose of the same in a time frame. In the meanwhile, considering that the petitioner was before this Court seeking for prayer (b) in the nature of interim direction, I have already arrived at the conclusion that Debts Recovery Tribunal would also look into that aspect after providing opportunity to the parties herein. Hence, if the Debts Recovery Tribunal is of the opinion that the appeal itself cannot be disposed of within a time schedule, the interim prayer made by the petitioner shall be considered on its merits and appropriate orders be passed on such interim prayer or make such interim arrangement with consultation of the learned counsel for the parties as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one week from the date on which the parties appear before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
6. It is stated that the matter is listed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal today i.e., 22.11.2013. Hence, the Tribunal shall take into consideration these aspects of the matter and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Needless to mention that if the Tribunal is considering the interim order/interim arrangement, it would also be open for the Tribunal to impose such conditions for compliance on consulting the learned counsel for the parties before it. The time frame for disposal of the interim prayer/interim arrangement as indicated above shall be computed from today, since the matter is listed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of. All contentions are left open to be urged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
JUDGE ST*