Prash Beverages LLP. Vs Canara Bank (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court considered a writ petition seeking quashing of a demand notice dated 18.01.2025 issued by the first respondent under Sections 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 in O.A. No. 819/2017. The petitioners also sought six months’ time to enable the second petitioner to settle the respondent bank’s loan under a one-time settlement for Rs. 30 lakhs, along with other appropriate reliefs.
The Court heard the submissions of the petitioners’ counsel and examined the record. It noted that the impugned demand notice had been issued by the authorised officer pursuant to the Recovery Certificate issued following the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, in O.A. No. 819/2017.
The Court observed that the petitioners were seeking to settle the outstanding loan amount and that there was no impediment preventing them from doing so. It further observed that the demand notice had been issued pursuant to the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and, in these circumstances, no ground existed warranting interference by the High Court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It further ordered that, in view of the dismissal of the writ petition, any interim order granted stood discharged and all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sri.Aiyanna K.S., counsel on behalf of Sri.Uday Kumar H.B., for the petitioners appeared in person.
2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
a. To issue writ of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 18.01.2025 sent by the 1st respondent in RC 486/2024 dispatched on 3/2/2025, under Sections 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and Rule 2 of second schedule to the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in OA 819/2017, as per Annexure-A.
b. To grant time for 6 months to enable petitioner No.2 to settle the loan of the respondent in the one-time settlement at Rs.30 Lakhs.
c. Grant any other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstance of the case.
3. Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.
4. It is noted that as per the Recovery Certificate issued in pursuance of the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bengaluru in O.A.No.819/2017, the authorized officer had issued a demand notice on 18.01.2025.
In the present writ petition, the petitioners seek to settle the outstanding loan amount. There is no impediment preventing the petitioners from doing so. Furthermore, the demand notice has been issued pursuant to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). In these circumstances, no ground exists warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.
