Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
VEEREGOWDA vs RECOVERY OFFICER DRT I on 21 May 2025
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE
21st day of May 2025
PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH
PRESIDING OFFICER
MA No.1 of 2025
1. Sri Veeregowda,
S/o. Sri Huchanna,
Residing at Byraweswara Nilyaya,
11th Cross, Vinayaka Nagara,
Doddaballapura 561 203.
2. Sri A.M. Saravanan,
S/o. Shri Muniyappa,
Residing at 4th Cross,
Someshwara Extension,
Ward No.28, 2nd Block,
Doddaballapura 561 203.
3. Sri Ramakrishna,
S/o. Shri Sundar,
Residing at No.501,
Konaghatta Village,
Doddaballapura 561 203.
4. Sri Arun Kumar,
S/o. Shri Krishnappa,
Residing at No.5,
Veera Raghavan Palya,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru District 562 123.
(Applicants 1 to 4 are represented by their GPA
Holder Sri Prashanth M S/o. Shri Murugan as per GPA dated 27.03.2024))
2 MA 1/2025
5. Sri Prashanth M,
S/o. Shri Murugan,
Residing at No.3/74, Naraipuram Village, Kalappambadi Post, Pennaguram Taluk, Dharmapuri District,Tamil Nadu 638611.
… Applicants
Versus
1. The Recovery Officer,
Debts Recovery Tribunal-II,
Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance,
Dept. of Financial Services,
4th Floor, BSNL Building,
Telephone House, Raj Bhavan Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
2. The IDBI Bank Ltd,
IDBI House, 3rd floor,
No.58, Mission Road,
Vengaluru 560 027.
Rep. by its Authorised Officer-
Shri Santhosh Kumar D
3. Sri K.V. Srinivas,
S/o. Late Venkatappa,
4. Sri S.M. Dheeraj,
S/o. Shri K.V. Srinivas,
Both are residing at No.2342,
20th Cross, K.R. Road, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 560 070.
5. Sri Lakku Subhash Chandra Reddy,
S/o. Shri Narayana Reddy,
Residing at No.47, Vande Mathram,
12th Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru 560 011.
… Respondents
Counsel for Applicants :
M/s.Veerabhadraiah & Associates
3 MA 1/2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. This application is filed u/s 22(2)(b) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with a prayer to direct the 1st respondent Recovery Officer to pay of Rs.1,20,00,000/- plus interest @ 18% p.a. till realization of the claim amount out of total receipt of sale consideration received from the 5th Respondent by virtue of the public auction and after having adjusted 2nd Respondent bank loan amount from the account of 3rd and 4th respondents.
2. The applicant claims to have been a lessee of the property put in auction. It is stated that 3rd respondent had received Rs.59,00,000/- as Security deposit on 14.1.2013 and further deposit of Rs.61,00,000/- at the time of renewal.
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that the 3rd and 4th respondent, being the borrowers had approached the 2nd Respondent and availed the loan of Rs.8,90,00,000/- as against rent receivable from the building from tenants including the petitioners. Hence according to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent bank was aware as to the existence of the tenancy and the petitioner had undertaken to pay rent directly to Escrow account.
4. It is also stated that pursuant to the Recovery Certificate issued in an Original Application filed by 2nd respondent bank against the borrowers the property was slotted for auction by the auction notice dated 9.10.2023 which stood postponed to 29.11.2023.
4 MA 1/2025
5. The petitioner also contends that the 2nd respondent in total regard as to the law decided in “Harish Gowardan Sondgars” had approached the learned Magistrate and procured an order u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
6. Heard the Ld counsel for the petitioners.
7. Petitioner tries to get the amount they claimed to have paid as advance in pursuance to the lease agreement from the excess amount held by the Recovery Officer.
8. Even though the petitioner had produced the documents purported to evidence that the borrowers own them the amount as claimed in the petition, this Tribunal is of the view that the entitlement of the petitioner to get any amount recovered from the 3rd and 4th respondent could not be gone into and decided in an interlocutory application and requires a full fledged trial.
9. Moreover this Tribunal cannot assume the jurisdiction to decide the inter se right or dispute between individuals. The prayers sought for by the petitioner is not within the competence of this Tribunal and not within the scope of adjudicatory powers of this Tribunal.
In view of the above, the MA No.1 of 2025 stands dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER