SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

R.P.No.835/2015 IN W.P.No.19145/2010 (GM – DRT)

BETWEEN :

1 .

CANARA KRISHI AGENCIES

REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR

R.NANDAKUMAR

S/O RAMACHANDER

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

2 .

SMT.SANDHYA NANDAKUMAR

W/O R.NANDAKUMAR

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

3 .

R.GURUPRASAD

S/O RAMACHANDER

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT NO.401

LAXMINAGAR APARTMENTS

KODIALBAIL,

MANGALORE-575 003

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W

SRI NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S., ADV.)

- 2 -

AND :

1 .

CANARA BANK

MORGANS GATE BRANCH

MANGALORE-575 001

REP. BY ITS MANAGER

2 .

SMT.HELAN

W/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR

3 .

SRI SHIVAKUMAR

S/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR

(SINCE DECEASED, DELETED VIDE

COURT ORDER DATED 07.02.2022.)

4 .

SRI ESHWAR KUMAR

S/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR

5 .

SMT.USHA

D/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR.

6 .

SMT.SHARMILA

D/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR.

7 .

SRI PREMKUMAR

S/O LATE G.MAYAKUMAR, MAJOR.

8 .

SRI KRISHNAKUMAR

AGED MAJOR

S/O G. MAYAKUMAR

9.

SRI. JAIKUMAR

AGED MAJOR

S/O G. MAYAKUMAR

10.

MANGAL KUMAR

(DELETED V/O DATED 18.01.2021)

R-2 TO R-7 & R9 ARE

R/AT NO.56 (NEW NO.21)

B-STREET, II CROSS,

DOBBASPET, VASANTHNAGAR

BANGALORE-560 052

- 3 -

11 . THE S.K.AGRICULTURISTS CO-OPERATIVE

MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,

SAHAKARI MAHAL

MANGALORE-575 001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI D.N.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R-2, R-4 TO R-7 & R-9;

R-1 SERVED; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.02.2022,

R-3 IS DELETED; NOTICE TO R-8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE

COURT ORDER DATED 15.12.2017.)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF

CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2011

PASSED IN W.P.NO.19145/2010 (GM-DRT), ON THE FILE OF

THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

The petitioners have sought for review of the order

dated 15.02.2011 passed in W.P.No.19145/2010 (GM-

DRT) whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners

herein, has been dismissed.

2.

The

petitioners

had

filed

W.P.No.19145/2010 challenging the order of Debt

Recovery

Appellate

Tribunal,

Chennai

in

R.A.Nos.65/2005 and 27/2006 dated 25.08.2006. This

- 4 -

Court being not convinced with the explanation offered

by the petitioners for challenging the order at the

belated stage i.e., after more than four years held that it

is not possible for the Court to entertain the writ

petition and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

The said order dated 15.02.2011 was challenged by the

petitioners before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP

No.11362/2011 which came to be dismissed vide order

dated 02.05.2011.

3.

This review petition has been filed by the

petitioners primarily on the ground that subsequent to

dismissal of the W.P.No.19145/2010 and SLP on

02.05.2011,

respondent

No.11

herein

–

S.K.

Agriculturists Co-operative Marketing Societies Limited

had filed W.P.No.16323/2006 before this Court. In the

said proceedings, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court,

where one of us, Hon’ble SSJ was member, has

dismissed the said writ petition observing that if the

- 5 -

petitioner therein – S.K. Agriculturists Co-operative

Marketing Societies Limited had issued the cheques in

favour of the original borrower, in the absence of

Annexures – 51 and 52 and even if the said cheques

were dishonoured, in such an event, it was for the bank

to proceed against the original borrower and not against

the petitioner therein – The S.K. Agriculturists Co-

operative Marketing Societies Limited.

4.

Learned

Senior

counsel

Sri.

D.R.

Ravishankar representing the petitioners would submit

that in view of the two conflicting orders in existence,

review of the order dated 15.02.2011 passed in

W.P.No.19145/2010 is necessary. Learned Senior

counsel would submit that dismissal of the SLP

No.11362/2011 would not be a bar for filing the review

petition before this Court seeking review of the order

dated 15.02.2011 in view of the subsequent order

passed

in

W.P.No.16323/2006

(D.D.

13.01.2015).

- 6 -

Learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the

judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.M.

Thomas vs. State of Kerala and another reported in

(2000) 1 SCC 666 and Shivdev Singh and others vs.

State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1963 SC

1909.

5.

We

have

carefully

considered

the

submissions made by the learned Senior counsel and

perused the material on record.

6.

The basis for preferring this review petition

appears to be the order passed in W.P.No.16323/2006

(D.D. 13.01.2015). It cannot be gainsaid that the

petitioners herein, were arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to

4 in the said writ petition proceedings and they were

represented by the learned counsel who was heard in

the matter. Any order passed on merits in the said writ

petition, if is aggrieved by the parties, the remedy would

have been to challenge the said order. That exercise not

- 7 -

having been done by the petitioners herein, allowing the

order passed in the said W.P.No.16323/2006 to attain

finality and now seeking review of the order dated

15.01.2011 passed in W.P.No.19145/2010 which has

reached finality in terms of the order passed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.11362/2011 is nothing

but abuse of process of Court. The judgments referred

to, by the learned Senior counsel with great respect, are

not applicable to the facts of the present case.

7.

There is no cavil on the legal proposition that

High Court as a Court of record, as envisaged in Article

215 of the Constitution of India has inherent powers to

correct the records. If any apparent error is noticed by

the High Court, jurisdiction of review would be

exercised. But in the present set of facts, no error

apparent on the face of the record is found to interfere

with the order passed in W.P.No.19145/2010 which was

dismissed on the grou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top