(1.) Petitioner borrower is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the DRT Order dtd. 14/3/2023 at Annexure-N whereby her SA No.30/2023 has been negatived. In the said SA, the Petitioner had put in challenge the Auction Notice vide Paper Publication dtd. 3/1/2023, whereby coercive proceedings for the recovery of outstanding loan amount of Rs.1,23,19,862.00. Learned counsel for the Petitioner apart from pleading the financial difficulty, submits that the impugned order is bereft of elements of justice; when his client being the guarantor of her late husband's debts was ready & willing to settle the claim of the Bank, the DRT ought not to have passed the impugned order.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT -II, Bengaluru. There is no dispute as to the loan transaction Petitioner's husband with the Respondent - Bank and Petitioner herself being the guarantor. The repayment of the loan was secured by the immovable properties; despite Notice of Demand, the repayment was not done; that being the position, the Item Nos. 2 & 3 of the Scheduled Properties came to be auctioned in terms of the liberty given by the DRT on 9/2/2023.
(3.) Learned Presiding Officer of the DRT - II at paragraphs 5 & 6 has recorded a finding as to learned counsel for the Petitioner appearing there on 8/3/2023 & 10/3/2023 refused to argue the matter, contending that when his client intended to settle the liability, there was no question of him arguing the matter. This is not a happy thing to happen. A lawyer is engaged by a litigant for arguing the matter. The so called offer to settle the dispute was put forth only after the auction of the property was done and third party rights were created in two of the three properties, although confirmation of the auction was deferred. All that was done as a matter of concession.