Disposed

Sri.Hanumanthsingh P Rajput v. the Branch Manager

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2019WP/113256/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an interim order of the DTI requiring a deposit. The Court did not entertain the petition but granted time for the petitioner to adhere to an undertaking regarding payment to the bank.

What did the court decide?

Time till the next DTI hearing granted for the petitioner to adhere to an undertaking of payment to the respondent bank.

Sri.Hanumanthsingh P Rajput Vs the Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.113256/2019 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.HANUMANTHSINGH P RAJPUT S/O SRI.PRATHAPSINGH H. RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: CTS NO.742, KERI ONI, ANNIGERI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.SUNIL S DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.CHETAN T LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER, TJSB SAHAKARI BANK LTD., TIRUMALA TRADE CENTRE, NEELIGIN ROAD, NCM. HUBBALLI-580029.

¶13

SRI.PRATHAPSINGH H RAJPUT S/O LATE HANUMATHSINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O: CTS NO.742, KERI ONI, ANNIGERI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶14

SRI.VIJAY SINGH S/O SRI.PRTHAPSINGH H RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O: CTS NO.742,

¶15

¶16

KERI ONI, ANNIGERI,

¶17

DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶18

SMT.GOWRA BAI @ NIVEDITHA D/O SRI.PRTHAPSINGH H RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O: CTS NO.742, KERI ONI, ANNIGERI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DC OFFICE, DHARWAD-580001.

¶20

THE TAHASILDHAR, ANNIGERI,

¶21

DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶22

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, ANNIGERI,

¶23

DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R5-R7, SRI.S.S.NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED EX-PARTE AD INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.08.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU IN I.R.NO.3577/2019 AND ORDER MADE ON I.A.NO.2466/2019 (FOR STAY) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DEPOSITING A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/(RUPEES THREE LAKHS ONLY) ON OR BEFORE 05.09.2019 AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.4,00,000/- (RUPEES FOUR LAKH ONLY) ON OR BEFORE 21.09.2019 INTO THE LOAN ACCOUNT WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Annexure-H.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondentBank has contended that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and is not entitled for any indulgence. However, the petitioner made a proposal and has filed an affidavit. The relevant portion of the affidavit at paragraph 3 reads as follows:

¶32

“The respondent No.1 by taking note of the non compliance of the conditional interim order is trying to take possession of house property which is only residential premises left to myself and my family. However, I undertake before this Hon’ble Court that, I will pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- today, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by tomorrow and another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on or before 25-09-2019 to the respondent no.1. Hence this affidavit.”

¶33

¶34

It is submitted that the petitioner would move an appropriate application seeking for modification of the interim order in the proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in I.R.No.3577/2019.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondent-

¶36

Bank submits upon instructions that if the petitioner adheres to the undertaking in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, they would not precipitate the matter till 26.09.2019 which is the next date of hearing of the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

¶37

This Court does not intend to entertain the

¶38

petition but however taking note of the submission of the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent-Bank,

¶39

the petition is disposed of as requiring no further orders. In light of the submission of the counsel for the respondent-Bank no action would be taken to precipitate the matter till 26.09.2019 subject to strict

¶40

¶41

adherence to the undertaking at paragraph 3. Needless to state if the undertaking at paragraph 3 is not adhered to, the respondent would be at liberty to take further action pursuant to the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and obtain possession.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sri.Hanumanthsingh P Rajput v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Hanumanthsingh P Rajput v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaputra Vs Shri Ashok

Basappa S/O. Veerabhadrappa Dodamani Vs Kanoria Industries Lrd

Mahila Vidyapeetha Vs S.B.Sales and Agencies

Mohanrao S/O Krishna Purohit Vs the Principle Secretary

Sri.M.B Narasimhulu, Vs Union of India

Smt.Susheela W/O Yallappa Munnavalli Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer