Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Karnataka Bank Ltd., filed a writ appeal against an order dated 23-11-2015 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 33276 of 2013. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The bank challenged this dismissal, arguing that the Single Judge should have examined the merits of the case instead of dismissing it solely on the ground of alternative remedy. The appeal was filed with a delay of 239 days, and the bank filed an application for condonation of delay. The Division Bench, after hearing both sides, found that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it. On the merits of the appeal, the court noted that the learned Single Judge had not considered the merits of the case and had simply dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge ought to have examined the merits and therefore set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The court made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The appellant bank filed an appeal with a delay of 239 days; the court found sufficient cause in the affidavit and condoned the delay, holding that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal in time (Para 1-2).
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of alternative remedy without examining the merits; the Division Bench held that the Single Judge ought to have considered the merits and remanded the matter for fresh disposal (Para 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy without examining the merits of the case, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Final Decision
The Division Bench allowed the application for condonation of delay, set aside the order dated 23-11-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 33276 of 2013, and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation Act
- 1963 Section 5
- Writ appeal maintainability
- SARFAESI Act
- 2002 Section 13(4)
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (11) 42
Writ Appeal No 3394 of 2016 (GM-RES)
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Chief Justice, Budihal R B, Justice
Sri Y V Parthasarathy (for appellant), Sri M Srikanth (for respondent)
Karnataka Bank Ltd., Asset Recovery Management Branch, Bengaluru, Rep. by its Chief Manager and Authorised Officer Mr Dathathreya M N
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition on ground of alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellant bank sought setting aside of the order dated 23-11-2015 in Writ Petition No. 33276 of 2013 and remand for fresh consideration on merits.
Filing Reason
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of alternative remedy without examining the merits of the case.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No. 33276 of 2013 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 23-11-2015 on the ground of alternative remedy.
Issues
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy without examining the merits?
Whether the delay of 239 days in filing the appeal should be condoned?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the Single Judge ought to have considered the merits of the case instead of dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of alternative remedy.
Respondent opposed the condonation of delay and the appeal on merits.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition should not be dismissed solely on the ground of alternative remedy without examining the merits of the case; the court must consider the merits before deciding on the maintainability of the writ petition.
Judgment Excerpts
After hearing Mr Y V Parthasarathy, learned advocate appearing in support of the application for condonation of delay, Mr M Srikanth, learned advocate appearing for the respondent and considering the averments contained in the affidavit annexed to the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memorandum of writ appeal in time.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of alternative remedy. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered the merits of the case. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Procedural History
The appellant bank filed Writ Petition No. 33276 of 2013 before the High Court of Karnataka. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 23-11-2015 on the ground of alternative remedy. The bank filed Writ Appeal No. 3394 of 2016 against that order, along with an application for condonation of delay of 239 days. The Division Bench heard the matter on 21-11-2016 and allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to the Single Judge.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Section 13(4)
