MRS PRASANNA KUMARI vs BHARAT COOPERATIVE BANK MUMBAI LIMITED on 31 October 2025

1. 1. R Prasannakumari, W/o late B K Raju, 14/2, Behind Minarva Mill, Gopal Puram, Magadi Road, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560023.

2. 2. R Hemaraj (minor), 14/2, Behind Minarva Mill, Gopal Puram, Magadi Road,

(represented by mother and natural guardian, R Prasannakumari).

3. 3. R Ayushi (minor), 14/2, Behind Minarva Mill, Gopal Puram, Magadi Road, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560023 (represented by mother and natural guardian, R Prasannakumari). .....

Petitioners/applicants

And

The authorised officer, Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Limited, 100, Money Terrace, K H Road, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560027. .... respondent/defendant bank This Miscellaneous Application having been heard on 28.07.2025 in the presence of Advocates M/s Sowmya C N and Priya for the petitioners/applicants, and Advocate Shri Pundikai Ishwara Bhat for the respondent/defendant bank, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:- 

Typed by: [illegible]

MA No.12/2024 in SA No.480/20232**ORDER**

Miscellaneous Application No.12/2024 was filed on 28.02.2024 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 07.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA 480/2023. The petitioners are none other than the applicants in SA 480/2023.

2. The case of the petitioners/applicants as set out in the MA is the sole reason that SA 480/2023 was dismissed as infructuous instead of passing orders on other violations committed by the bank under S.13(4) of the Act.

3. The respondent/defendant bank filed a statement of objection on 27.03.2025 contending that the application is liable to be dismissed as there is no merits.

4. The only point arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners/applicants are entitled to the relief prayed for?

5. 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^st 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^th 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, Tribal by Kapi MA No.12/2024 in SA No.480/20233

1993' with effect from 01.12.2019. However, even in the application filed on 28.02.2024 the name of the RDB Act is used in its erstwhile name.

6. The Point:- The petitioners/applicants on 07.10.2023 filed SA 480/2023 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 21.09.2023 issued by the defendant under S.13(4) of the Act in respect of the schedule immovable property proposing for sale of the same on 10.10.2023 as against the reserve price of ₹210 lakhs for recovery of the sum of ₹2,99,18,603/- as on 17.09.2023 . However, the SA was dismissed on 07.02.2024 as infructuous as the proposed sale was not taken place.

7. The order dated 07.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA 480/2023 reads as below:- *"Both the counsels are present. Counsel for respondent bank submits that the appellant has challenged the sale notice and the sale has not taken place on the scheduled date. Head both the learned 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 auction/sale is rendered infructuous and accordingly the SA is disposed of as infructuous."*

8. A perusal of the order dated 07.02.2024 shows that SA 480/2023 was dismissed as infructuous as the sale was not taken place on the scheduled date of 10.10.2023. 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 07.02.2024. 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.

9. 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.

Tiptal He Kaga

MA No.12/2024 in SA No.480/20234

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 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.

10. In the result, MA 12/2024 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 31^st day of October, 2025]*

[ IMTIAZ ALI ]

Typed in Kgp

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 31^st day of October, 2025

**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.12 OF 2024 IN SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.480 OF 2023**

Between

R Prasannakumari, W/o late B K Raju, 14/2, Behind Minarva Mill, Gopal Puram, Magadi Road, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560023 and two others. ....Petitioners/applicants.

And

The authorised officer, Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Limited, 100, Money Terrace, K H Road, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560027 .....Respondent/defendant bank

**ORDER**

Handwritten signature and date: 31.10.25