Partly allowed

Sri Gopi v. Vs Bank of Maharashtra

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2015WP/43772/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging physical possession under SARFAESI Act allowed. Relying on Harshad Govardhan Sondagar, petition dismissed as misconceived since adequate remedy by way of Magistrate order existed. Respondent bank restrained from dispossession for two weeks pending Magistrate approach.

What did the court decide?

Bank restrained from dispossessing petitioner for two weeks to enable him to approach the competent Magistrate. Petition disposed of.

Sri Gopi v Vs Bank of Maharashtra — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.43772 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Gopi .V, Son of Venkatachalam, Age 32 years, Residing at No.B-32, Sycon Heritage, Church Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri R. Channakeshava, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Bank of Maharashtra, Indiranagar Branch, No.6, 1^st Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 071, Represented by its Authorized Officer.

¶13

¶14

M/s. Jeswill Hitech Solutions, Managing Director, Tony Ponniah, Son of Lae Sandoshraj Ponniah, Age 52 years, Residing at B-32, Sycon Heritage, Church Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004.

¶15

M/s. Jeswill Hitech Solutions, Managing Director, Mr. P.S.Moorthy, Son of Late V. Parthasarathy, Age 55 years, Residing at No.3524/1, 2^nd Floor, Service Road, H.A.L.Second 2^nd Stage, Bangalore 560 008.

¶16

Mrs. Maria Qorretti, Wife of Mr. P.S.Moorthy, Age 57 years, Residing at No.3524/1, 2^nd Floor, Service Road, H.A.L.Second 2^nd Stage, Bangalore 560 008.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By Shri V.B.Ravi Shankar, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Respondent nos. 2 to 4 served)

¶19

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct to first respondent not to

¶21

¶22

take physical possession of the writ petition scheduled properties.

¶23

This Writ Petition is coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner claims to be the tenant in respect of certain

¶26

premises which is said to have been offered as security by the owner thereof in respect of a loan transaction. The owner of the property having defaulted in repayment of the loan, the respondent – Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’, for brevity).

¶27

It transpires that there is an order of dispossession by

¶28

the Magistrate. It is laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Others (2014) 6 SCC 1, that in such circumstances, it would be for a tenant

¶29

¶30

claiming under a valid lease agreement to seek protection, and such tenant is not to be dispossessed otherwise than under due process of law before the very Magistrate who has directed delivery of possession.

¶31

Therefore, the petitioner being afforded an adequate remedy, the present petition is misconceived. However, since the petitioner would have to now approach the competent Magistrate, it is likely that the Bank may proceed to dispossess him post-haste. Therefore, the Bank is restrained from dispossessing the petitioner in the interregnum during which the petitioner may take steps to approach the Magistrate. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed before he approaches the Magistrate for which he is granted two weeks’ time to take steps. The petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Sri Gopi v. Vs Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gopi v. Vs Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Gupta S/O S.P.Gupta Vs Master Rohan Gupta S/O Dr Suman Singh

M/S Vijaykiran Associates Vs Central Warehousing

Smt Padmini v Kamath Vs the Assistant Registrar

Autograde International Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Digila Devices India (Pvt) Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Jeswill Hitech Solutions Vs Bank of Maharashtra