M/S PRIYADARSHINI RESTAURANT vs. SRI RAMAKRISHNA HOTELS AND ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.K.SREEDHAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER WRIT APPEAL NO.1158/2013 (GM-DRT) Between: M/s Priyadarshini Restaurant, Running its Hotel Business, at Premises Bearing No.262, S.C.Road, Bangalore – 9, Reptd. By its Partner, Sri A.L.Rakesh, S/o A.N.Lakshminarayana, Aged about 35 years, R/o No.6, 3rd Main Road, Sripuram, Kumara Park (West), Bangalore – 20. …. Appellant. (By Sri Ravi B. Naik, Sr. Adv. For Sri Chandrashekar P., Adv.)

2 And: 1 Sri Ramakrishna Hotels and Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., A private limited company, Incorporated under the Companies Act, Having its office at No.262, Ramakrishna Lodge, S.C.Road, Bangalore – 560 009, Reptd. By its Director, Sri D.Ramachandrappa. 2 M/s Ramakrishna Lodge, A Partnershi Firm having Its office at No.262, Ramakrishna Lodge, S.C.Road, Bangalore – 560009, Reptd. By its Director. 3 M/s Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., BVK Iyengar Road, Bangalore – 560 001, Reptd. By its Manager. 4 Edelweirs Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, Edelweirs House, OEE CST Road, Kaling, Mumbai – 400 098, Reptd. By its Amit Agarwal.

3 5 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore – II, C.R.Bldgs., Queens Road, Bangalore-1. 6 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Unity Bldg., Annexe, Mission Road, Bangalore – 27. 7 The Tax Recovery Officer, Range – III, Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road, Bangalore – 560 002. …. Respondents. (By Sri Vikram Trivedi, Adv. For Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, Adv. For R4) ---

This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order dated 5.2.2013 in W.P.No.1545/2013, etc.

This Writ Appeal coming on for Orders this day, S.ABDUL NAZEER.J., delivered the following:

4 JUDGMENT S.ABDUL NAZEER. J., (Oral) The appellant filed Writ Petition No.1545/2013 challenging the order at Annexure 'J' dated 20.12.2012 whereby the Debt Recovery Tribunal has dismissed the petition filed by it under Section 17 of the SURFAESI Act, 2002 ('Act' for short) on the ground of limitation. Learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition as remedy of an appeal is available to the appellant under Section 18 of the Act. The appellant has called in question the validity of the said order in this appeal. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this case. Admittedly, the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal is appealable under Section 18 of the Act. That is why the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition. We are entirely in agreement with the view

5 of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 3. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge had granted an interim order staying the operation of further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2012 till 5.3.2013 and that the interim order may be continued for a further period of four weeks. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to extend the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge till 15.3.2013. Ordered accordingly. No costs.

Sd/- ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. Sd/- JUDGE. BMM/-