DIVYA JYOTHI Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Smt.Pushpavathi who happens to be the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioners vide Instrument dtd. 24/11/2018, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-F, is the wife of 3rd respondent Mr.B.Lakshman Reddy. Petitioners are their daughters. Their father is stated to have abandoned the family after availing the subject loan by mortgaging the petition property in favour of the respondent-bank. The mortgage loan now outstanding in a sum of about rupees 1.5 crore was the subject matter of SARFAESI proceedings at the hands of DRT-II Bengaluru and later DRAT at Chennai. The said proceedings having culminated into adverse orders, this petition is filed invoking writ jurisdiction of this court.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that the petition property was acquired by his clients by virtue of a registered gift deed executed by their mother on 24/9/2009 as the GPA Holder of their father ie., 3rd respondent herein; petitioners had got issued a public notice dtd. 15/2/2010 alerting the creditors not to deal with the subject property and despite that the respondent bank having taken the mortgage thereof had lent huge sum of money to their father; for the fault of the lender bank, petitioners interest cannot be prejudiced; this aspect having not been duly considered by the DRT in S.A.274/2018, an adverse order was made on 6/12/2018; petitioners Appeal No.1/2019 came to be negatived by DRAT, Chennai vide order dtd. 8/4/2019 on the ground that the statutory requirement of making pre-deposit has not been complied with; DRAT failed to see that the petitioners are neither borrowers nor guarantors nor have they anything to do with the subject loan and therefore the requirement of making such a deposit was not applicable to them.

(3.) Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the bank resists the petition making submission in justification of the orders impugned in the petition; he contends that the subject property was auctioned for the recovery of outstanding loan and that none other than petitioners mother Smt.Pushpavathi who also happens to be their GPA Holder prosecuting this petition has bought the said property, being the highest bidder; right of appeal to the DRAT being conditioned u/s.18 of 2002 Act, dismissal of petitioners appeal on the ground of non-compliance of the said condition, cannot be faltered; the whole exercise is marred by fraud & duplicity and therefore constitutional court should be loathe to interfere.