AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Learned Counsel for both sides are present.
This appeal is filed against order passed in OA 595/1998 on 9.10.2017 by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru. The aforesaid Original Application was filed by the Appellant for recovery of Rs.2,13,45,000/- with interest and costs from the Respondent. After contest, this application was dismissed, along with IA 1850/2017. Aggrieved against this order, this appeal is filed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent, by virtue of a Memorandum of Understanding executed with the Department of Industry, Government of Karnataka on 27.6.1992 agreed to create 5,000 jobs in Gem-cutting for entrepreneur-cum-artisans under Government of Karnataka’s continuous Rural Productive Employment Programme named ‘Vishwa’. It has also agreed to give technology and machinery to selected beneficiaries on turn key basis. The beneficiaries would be provided with a term and working capital loan without any margin money, the State Government shall give a subsidy of 20% to 25% to the beneficiary depending on the location of the unit, and as per the policy of incentives and concessions. Accordingly, beneficiaries were provided financial facilities.
Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that added to this MoU, there was yet another MoU dated 22.6.1992 wherein, apart from the aforesaid stipulations, certain other stipulations were made to fastening liability on SDL/DGDC, so long as the money shall remain with SDL/DGDC. However, the primary responsibility for the repayment of loan availed was on the beneficiaries. Respondent was to assist Appellant/DSMS on recovery of the loan. Combined reading of the MoUs shows that the primary responsibility for repaying the loan availed was on the beneficiary.
It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel for Appellant that a demand was raised by the Appellant that Respondent is liable to pay the amount in view of its failure to create 10,000 jobs and training to the beneficiaries, the Vishwa scheme failed. Therefore, respondent was asked to make the payment. Respondent sent a reply dated 30.4.1997 admitting its liability and only sought waiver of interest. In the light of the clean admission of the liability to pay the amount, the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru ought to have allowed the Original Application. However, Original Application was dismissed on the main ground that the beneficiaries were not impleaded, as directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.
In reply, Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka passed an order in WP NO. 43289/2003 dated 19.4.2007 whereby a direction was given to the Appellant to implead all the beneficiaries for the disposal of the Original Application. Against this order, Writ Appeal was filed by the Respondent in WA 922/2007. That was dismissed confirming the order passed in WP 43289/2007 on 16.7.2012. Despite that, beneficiaries have not been impleaded. Only in the year 2017, IA 1850/2017 was filed to condone the delay in filing the application for impleading the beneficiaries. Noting the huge delay, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissed this IA and OA.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
From the facts narrated above, it can be gathered that Appellant filed OA 595/1998 for recovery of Rs.2,13,45,000/- from the Respondent. A reading of the order dated 9.10.2017 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Bengaluru in the aforesaid OA shows that IA No. II filed to challenge the maintainability of the said OA was dismissed on 30.4.2001. Against the order of dismissal, MA No. 97/2001 filed by Appellant was allowed by DRAT on 9.1.2002. Against the order allowing MA 97/2001, WP 3918/2002 was filed and that was disposed directing the DRAT to dispose the matter afresh. DRAT again heard the matter and disposed it on 18.8.2003 rejecting the OA on the ground of maintainability. Then WP No. 43289/2003 was filed by the Appellant and that was disposed on 19.4.2007 giving direction to the Appellant to implead all the beneficiaries as Parties in the OA. This was challenged by the Respondent by way of an appeal in WA No. 922/2007. This appeal was dismissed confirming the order in WP 43289/2003 on 16.7.2012. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka found that the OA is maintainable in view of the admission made by the Respondent. However, OA cannot be proceeded against the Respondent alone and the impleadment of the beneficiaries were necessary. Despite the directions given in the year 2007 in WP No. 43289/2003 to implead the beneficiaries and confirmed in Writ Appeal in 2012, Appellant failed to act promptly for impleading the beneficiaries. It is only in the year 2017, IA 1850/2017 was filed for condoning the delay in filing the application for impleadment. The delay is huge i.e., 10 years from the date of disposal of the Writ Petition and 5 years from the date of disposal of the Writ Appeal. It is not a mortgage loan where one has a time span of 12 years for recovery of debt due. It is an unsecured loan on the personal guarantee given by the beneficiaries. Without the beneficiaries, proper and binding adjudication cannot be done.
This Tribunal finds that Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru has considered these aspects and rightly dismissed IA 1850/2017 filed for condoning the delay in impleading the beneficiaries, and OA 595/1998. This Tribunal finds no meritorious grounds available to set aside the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru, thus, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru’s order is confirmed and this Appeal RA 26/2022 is dismissed.
Pending IAs, if any, stands closed.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.