In these circumstances, the petitionersbanks moved four interlocutory applications before DRT Bengaluru on 02.03.2016 seeking interim prayers to freeze the passport of Respondent No.3 to issue an arrest warrant against Respondent No.3, to issue a garnishee order against Respondent Nos.10 and 11 from disbursing US 75 million, and to issue a direction to Respondent No.3 to disclose his assets on oath.
According to the petitionersbanks they had individually advanced to Respondent No.1 loans of thousands of crores of rupees that by Master Debts Recast Agreement dated 21.10.2010 and other related documents the existing loans were restructured and treated as a single facility and that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 executed a companyporate guarantee dated 21.12.2010 and a personal guarantee dated 21.12.2010 respectively, guaranteeing repayment of the entire amount due.
Further, since the above accounts were classified as number performing assets, the petitionersbanks filed OA No.766 of 2013 against Respondent Nos.1 to 9 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru for short DRT Bengaluru , inter alia seeking recovery of Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine and Paise Thirty Two only from Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
It is the case of the petitionersbanks that DRT Bengaluru heard arguments only with respect to the Garnishee Application on 02.03.2016 and posted the matters for orders on 04.03.2016 but failed to companysider the other applications.
By Order dated 09.03.2016 this Court issued numberice returnable on 30.03.2016 and also permitted the petitionersbanks to serve numberice on Respondent No.3 through the Indian High Commission, London or any other Embassy.
Since the High Court refused to pass any ad interim direction, the aforesaid special leave petitions were filed in this Court.
Aggrieved by such number consideration of the interlocutory applications by DRT Bengaluru, despite the urgency and the enormous amounts involved in the matter, the petitionersbanks moved the High Court of Karnataka by filing Writ Petition Nos.12191 12194 of 2016 seeking appropriate directions to DRT Bengaluru to hear and dispose of the applications moved by the petitionersbanks on 02.03.2016 expeditiously.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. State Bank of India and 13 other banks1 have filed the instant special leave petitions challenging the order dated 04.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos.12191 12194 of 2016 refusing to pass any ad interim order against Respondent Nos.3, 10 and 11.
