Disposed

Sri.K.Lingappa v. the Assistant General Manager

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2013WP/8314/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Citing Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition where a guarantee applicant sought OTS scheme benefits. The court permitted the petitioner to file objections with the bank’s authorized officer before enforcement proceedings commenced.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file objections to proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act; Authorized Officer directed to consider objections and pass orders.

Sri.K.Lingappa Vs the Assistant General… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.8314 OF 2013 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.K.LINGAPPA S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.174 4TH STAGE, INDUSTRIAL TOWN WEST OF CHORD ROAD EXTENSION RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560010

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI M B CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.,)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH #22, 1ST FLOOR J C ROAD, BANGALORE CITY BRANCH BANGALORE 560 002

¶13

¶14

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA SSI PEENYA BRANCH PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE 560058

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M K VENKATARAMANA ADV., FOR R1 & 2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DT.6.1.2013 & TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS ON THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-D ETC.,

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

M/s. H.R.H. Industries has availed certain financial

¶21

assistance from the State Bank of India, SSI Branch, Peenya. The petitioner has offered guarantee for the loan transaction. The principal borrower had failed to discharge the debt to the Bank. The contention of the petitioner is that he has offered to pay the entire amount in terms of the OTS scheme. He has already paid 5%

¶22

of the outstanding amount as on the date of NPA. However, he has

¶23

¶24

not received any communication thereafter. Therefore, he filed a representation at Annexure-D for grant of the benefit of the OTS scheme.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed

¶26

objections contending that the petitioner is not entitled for the OTS scheme. It is submitted that the authorized officer of the bank is proposing to initiate proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act for recovery of the amount.

¶27

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶28

submits that the petitioner may be permitted to file objections to the proceedings which may be initiated by the authorized officer of the bank and he may be permitted to raise all the contentions including the contentions raised in this writ petition.

¶29

The submissions of the learned counsel is placed on

¶30

record. The petitioner is permitted to file objections to the

¶31

¶32

proceedings, which may be initiated by the Authorized Officer of the bank for recovery of the amount in question. If such objections are filed, the Authorized Officer has to consider the same and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶33

Sd/ JUDGE

¶34

Sri.K.Lingappa v. the Assistant General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.Lingappa v. the Assistant General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vinayaka Education Society (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms. Martha Irena Jakimowici Vs Foreigners Regional Registration Officer

The Horticulture Officials Recreation Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Durgada Rajegowda Vs the Chief Secretary

Mathrshree Club Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.N Prabhavathi Gowda Vs the Assistant General Manager