Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MRS VERONICA MARY MACHADO AND OTHERS vs BANK OF BARODA on 30 January 2026
Presiding Officer
✓ 30.01.2026
~~27.02.2026~~
MA 7/2023 is dismissed as per the separate order passed today. All pending IAs stand closed.
✓
Presiding Officer
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI
PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated the 30<sup>th</sup> day of January, 2026
**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.7 OF 2023
IN
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.364 OF 2019**
Between
1. 1. Veronica Mary Machado,
W/o Donat Louis Machado,
101, Casa Blanca, 35,
Norris Road, Richmond Town,
Bangalore, Karnataka – 560025.
2. 2. Alben Reynold Machado,
S/o Donat Louis Machado,
101, Casa Blanca, 35,
Norris Road, Richmond Town,
Bangalore, Karnataka – 560025.
3. 3. Vincent Lawrence Machado,
S/o Donat Louis Machado,
Raintree Hall, 1B, 1<sup>st</sup> Floor, Rhenius Street, Richmond Town, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560025.
4. 4. Neil Machado,
S/o Donat Louis Machado,
101, Casa Blanca, 35,
Norris Road, Richmond Town,
Bangalore, Karnataka – 560025.
.....Petitioners/applicants
And
1. 1. The Chief Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
(erstwhile Vijaya Bank),
Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta,
Bangalore, Karnataka – 560076.
2. 2. M/s Canopy Estate (P) Limited,
Canopy House, 969, 5<sup>th</sup> A Cross, HRBR 1<sup>st</sup> Block, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560043, represented by Managing Director, Syed Yasir Rizvi.
Filed by Page
1. 3. Syed Yasir Rizvi,
S/o Syes Nasir Rizvi,
C302, Canopy Citadel,
Agara Main Road,
Babusapalya, Bangalore,
Karnataka – 560043.
2. 4. Salma Rizvi,
W/o Syed Yasir Rizvi,
C302, Canopy Citadel,
Agara Main Road,
Babusapalya, Bangalore,
Karnataka – 560043.
3. 5. Mohhammad Zahiruddin Ahmed,
S/o Syed Salahuddin Ahmed,
10, 1<sup>st</sup> Floor, Chandrahasappa Building, Grapes Garden, Horamavu, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560043. .... Respondents/defendants This Miscellaneous Application having been heard on 15.10.2025 in the presence of Advocates M/s Ajesh Kumar Shankar, Srihari, Harish Kumar V L, Deekshitha M S, Amanda C and Suneha B for the petitioners/applicants, and Advocates M/s Francis Xavier and Sachin for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent/1<sup>st</sup> defendant, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:-
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**
Miscellaneous Application No.7/2023 was filed on 18.01.2023 under S.22(2)(h) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) – for short 'the RDB Act' praying to set aside the final order dated 17.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal in SA 364/2019 and to restore the same to the file. The petitioners are none other than the applicants in SA 364/2019.
2. The case of the petitioners/applicants as set out in the MA is the sole reason that SA 364/2019 was dismissed as infructuous instead of passing orders on other violations committed by the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant bank under S.13(4) of the Act.
3. The 1<sup>st</sup> respondent/1<sup>st</sup> defendant bank filed a statement of objection on 04.07.2025 contending that the application is liable to be dismissed as there is no merits.
Tribunal Krip
It is reiterated therein that the sale pursuant to the sale notice dated 26.06.2019 (which had been challenged in SA 364/2019) was not materialised.
4. No steps appear to have been taken for issue of notices as against respondents 2 to 5/defendants 2 to 5 as per the available records in the file and, therefore, the MA as against them stands dismissed.
5. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners/applicants are entitled to the relief prayed for?
6. At the outset, for academic interest, it may be pointed out that the application has been filed under the erstwhile name of the RDB Act. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it under sub-section (3) of S.1 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016) – for short 'the Bankruptcy Code' - appointed the 1<sup>st</sup> day of December, 2019 as the date on which the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code only in so far as relating to personal guarantors to corporate debtors came into force vide S.O No.4126(E) published in the Gazette of India : Extraordinary [Part II – S.3(ii)](Notification F.No.30/21/2018-Insolvency Section dated 15.11.2019]. By virtue of the said Notification dated 15.11.2019, while S.249 r/w the 5<sup>th</sup> Schedule of the Bankruptcy Code came into force, in sub-section (1) of S.1 of the Act, for the words 'Due to Banks and Financial Institutions' the words 'and Bankruptcy' was substituted and thus the title of the Act was amended as the 'Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993' with effect from 01.12.2019. However, even in the application filed on 18.01.2023 the name of the RDB Act is used in its erstwhile name.
7. The Point:- The petitioners/applicants on 16.07.2019 filed SA 364/2019 under S.17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as amended from time to time – hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' – praying to set aside the sale notice dated 26.06.2019 issued by the authorised officer of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant bank under S.13(4) of the Act in respect of the Trijal Kaji schedule immovable properties proposing for sale of the same on 17.07.2019. However, the SA was dismissed on 17.01.2023 as infructuous as the proposed sale was not taken place for want of bidders.
8. The order dated 17.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal in SA 364/2019 reads as below:- *"Both the counsels are present. Counsel for the appellant is present, submits that the respondent bank has to file its objections and prays to allow the IA filed by the appellant for restoration of schedule property in question. Counsel for the respondent bank submits that the respondent bank has already filed its objections, reported that the appellant has challenged the sale notice, the sale has not taken place on the scheduled date and the prayer of the appellant has become infructuous. Heard the submissions of both the counsels. Since the sale did not materialise on the scheduled date as stated by the counsel for the respondent bank, the prayer sought in the SA to set aside the e-auction/sale is rendered infructuous, nothing survives in the SA, hence the IA filed by the appellant for restoration of schedule property in question and the SA are disposed of as infructuous."*
9. A perusal of the order dated 17.01.2023 shows that SA 364/2019 was dismissed as infructuous as the sale has not taken place on the scheduled date of 17.07.2019. But the petitioners/applicants have taken a plea that the contentions raised by them in the SA on merits of the case were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 17.01.2023. It appears to be their case that the SA was disposed of on maintainability only and not on merits of the case. It may be noted that when the relief sought for in the SA has become infructuous, the merits of the case need not be considered at all. To put it differently, the parties would miss the opportunity to address the issues on merits of the case as the same had become redundant.
10. A suit become infructuous when due to subsequent events, the relief sought for can no longer be granted or the matter in dispute itself has ceased to exist. Therefore, nothing remains to be adjudicated by the Tribunal in such a matter. It may be noted in this regard that as per sub-sections (3) and (4) of S.17 of the Act, the jurisdiction, power and authority of this Tribunal is confined to examine the facts and circumstances of the case based on the evidences adduced by both sides and to verify as to whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of S.13 of the Act taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Tiptoli Kaa
Rules made thereunder. The scheme of the Act and the Rules made thereunder do not envisage for adjudication of a controversy which is not live at present. It is also not designed to pass any orders on academic interest or on hypothetical opinions. When the cause of action is non est, it is settled principle that the SA should be dismissed as infructuous rather than adjudicating the same on merits. The MA has been filed on misconception of law only and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, MA 7/2023 is dismissed. No costs.
*[Dictated to my PA directly on the computer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 30<sup>th</sup> day of January, 2026]*
[ IMTIAZ ALI ] **PRESIDING OFFICER**
Tayyib Kazi
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated the 30<sup>th</sup> day of January, 2026
**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.7 OF 2023 IN SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.364 OF 2019**
Between
Veronica Mary Machado, W/o Donat Louis Machado, 101, Casa Blanca, 35, Norris Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560025 and three others. ....Petitioners/applicants.
And
The Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, (erstwhile Vijaya Bank), Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560076 and four others. ....Respondents/defendants
**ORDER**
30.01.26