MEDICARE PHARMA REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. J. NAGENDRA PRASAD AND MRS. C.J. VINDHYA Vs. CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER AND CONSTITUTE ATTORNEY, MRS. PARAMESHWARI RAVINDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court seeking for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the entire proceedings in O.A. No. 662/2010 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('DRT' for short), Bangalore. The petitioners are the borrowers in respect of certain over -draft facilities which had been availed from the respondent -bank. In respect of the claims due to the respondent, the respondent -bank has instituted a suit in O.A. No. 662/2010 before the DRT. The petitioners herein have appeared in the said proceedings and have filed their objection statement. The matter is pending consideration.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners while seeking to sustain the prayer made in the instant petition would contend that in addition to filing the suit before the DRT, the respondent -bank had also invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the possession of the property had been taken. Subsequently, the property has also been brought to sale and certain amounts have been realised by the respondent -bank. It is therefore contended that when the property which had been mortgaged has already been sold by the respondent -bank, the further continuation of the suit in O.A. No. 662/2010 for the relief of Recovery Certificate would not survive. It is also his case that the Manager who has not been properly authorised has tendered evidence in the said proceedings and the request made by the petitioners seeking cross -examination of the witness was not considered by the DRT. For all the said reasons, it is contended that the proceedings before the DRT cannot proceed any further and therefore the same requires to be quashed.

(3.) EVEN with regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a person who was not authorised has tendered evidence, that aspect of the matter also could be pointed out to the DRT. In any event, with regard to the application filed by the petitioners seeking leave to cross -examine the witness being rejected, the petitioners had not made out any grievance in that regard at the appropriate stage and therefore it need not be adverted to at this juncture though it may be open to be urged in an appropriate proceeding. Hence, for all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the petition seeking to quash the very suit which has been filed before the DRT in O.A. No. 662/2010 as sought for by the petitioners would not be maintainable nor can the relief be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of.