Petitioners challenged via Writ Petitions the validity of a sale notice issued by the respondent bank. The High Court examined the failure of petitioners to deposit the final amount before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, declining to entertain the writ petitions and dismissing the appeal as the DRT order had attained finality.
No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION Nos.15795-796 OF 2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 MR.M.SIVARAJ S/O SRI S A MANI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PROPRIETOR,M/S MADURA HANDLOOMS # 1879/E, IV MAIN, VINOBHA NAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577004
2 MR.PREMKUAMR S/O SRI GOPAL NAIR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S SHREE MADURA HANDLOOMS SILKS & SAREES # 149, "SRI NAYAKA", 1ST MAIN ROAD, SHAKTHI GARDEN KALYAN NAGAR, MUDALAPALYA BANGALORE-560040 ...PETITIONERS
(By SRI Y. RAJENDRAPRASAD SHETTY, ADV.)
AND :
STATE BANK OF INDIA MCC BLOCK, DAVANGERE BRANCH # 2664/2, MELAGIRI PLAZA DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD DAVANGERE-577004 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri. M R SHASHIDHAR, ADV. FOR C/R )
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE OF SALE , DT.6.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNX-A.
2
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
In these cases, the petitioners have called in question the validity of the sale notice at Annexure-A, whereby the Authorised Officer has invited offers from the general public for sale of the property mentioned therein.
parties.
3
three months from the date of the said order. The DRT has observed that if the petitioners fail to deposit the amount, the respondent bank is at liberty to take legal action to recover the amount in accordance with law. The Bank has extended time for payment of the amount as requested by the petitioners. However, petitioners have failed to pay the amount. That is why, the respondent has issued the impugned sale notice.
Sd/JUDGE
KLY/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the validity of the sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act deserves to be entertained by this Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. M. Sivaraj
Mr. Premkuamr
State Bank of India
S. Abdul Nazeer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
