Disposed

Smt.N Prabhavathi Gowda v. the Assistant General Manager

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2013WP/8316/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the Karnataka High Court allowed the petitioner to file objections to recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The court did not dispose of the substantive claim regarding the One Time Settlement scheme but permitted the petitioner to raise contentions against the bank's proposed actions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file objections to recovery proceedings; Authorized Officer directed to consider objections and pass orders.

Smt.N Prabhavathi Gowda Vs the Assistant General… — Banking and Recovery | 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.8316 OF 2013 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.N PRABHAVATHI GOWDA W/O HONNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.6 HEGGANAHALLI MAIN ROAD PEENYA 2ND STAGE BANGALORE 560058

¶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

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

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORESEMENT DATED 9.2.13 ISSUED BY R1 IN THE LETTER DATED 6.2.13 VIDE ANNX-D BY ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI 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. Ashwini Industries has availed certain financial assistance from

¶21

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 she has offered to pay the entire amount in terms of the OTS scheme. She has already paid 5% of the outstanding amount as on the date of NPA. However, she has not received any communication thereafter. Therefore, she filed a representation at Annexure-D for grant of the benefit of the OTS scheme.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed 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.

¶23

¶24

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 she may be permitted to raise all the contentions including the contentions raised in this writ petition.

¶25

4.The submissions of the learned counsel is placed on record. The petitioner is permitted to file objections to the 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.

¶26

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶27

Smt.N Prabhavathi Gowda v. the Assistant General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.N Prabhavathi Gowda 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.K.Lingappa Vs the Assistant General Manager

Sri Durgada Rajegowda Vs the Chief Secretary

Mathrshree Club Vs State of Karnataka