Dismissed

Shri Yellaraj v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Feb 2020WP/140104/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a borrower facing SARFAESI action, filed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order directing handover of property. The Court rejected the petition, noting the petitioner failed to deposit the required amount, did not show bona fides, and requested time for repayment which the Court found inappropriate to grant.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands rejected; impugned order upholds.

Shri Yellaraj Vs the State of Karnataka — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

Dated this the 27^th day of February 2020

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

Writ Petition No.140104 of 2020 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SHRI YELLARAJ S/O. TIPPANNA KATTIMANI AGE: ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: CLASS I CONTRACTOR, R/O: MALAPUR LAST STOP, UDAYANAGAR, DHARWAD, PIN: 580001. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

A N D

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPTD. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU PIN- 560001

¶11

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU PIN- 560001

¶12

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD, D.C.COMPOUND, PIN: 580001 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT, VIJAYAPUR PIN: 586101 5. THE TAHASHILDARA TAHASHILDAR DHARWAD TALUKA DHARWAD PIN: 580001 6. THE TAHASHILDAR TAHASHILDAR NIDAGUNDI DISTRICT, VIJAYAPUR PIN: 586106 7. THE CHIEF MANAGER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA RASMECCD, DHARWAD 1^ST FLOOR, ABOVE SBI MAIN BRANCH, COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD PIN: 580001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1-R6 SRI. SURESH S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/01/2020, ORDER BEARING NO.RB/ SARFES/ CR/ 33/2019-20 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, VIDE ANNEXURE-L.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court under Article

¶19

226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.01.2020 bearing No.RB/SARFES/CR/33/2019-20, vide Annexure-L.

¶20

The petitioner is a borrower from the 7^th respondent-Bank. For failure on the part of the petitioner to repay the amount taken from the 7^th respondent-Bank, the 7^th respondent-Bank initiated action against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’). Section 13 notice was issued and thereafter, action under Section 13(4) was taken. The 7^th respondent-Bank made an application under Section 14(1) of the Act. Considering the said application, the 3^rd respondentDeputy Commissioner passed the impugned order directing to handover the property in question to the 7^th

¶21

¶22

respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

This Court, by interim order dated

¶24

20.02.2020, directed Sri.Suresh S.Gundi, learned counsel to accept notice on behalf of the 7^th respondentBank. Further, this Court passed an interim order directing the peittioner to show his bona fide, to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within one week with the 7^th respondent-Bank and also noted that failing to deposit the said amount within the time granted, the interim order granted would automatically stand vacated.

¶25

The learned counsel for the 7^th respondent-

¶26

Bank submits that no deposit has been made by the petitioner till today.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if one year time is granted, the petitioner would clear all the dues. If the petitioner needs any time

¶28

¶29

for repayment, it is for him to approach the 7^th respondent-Bank by making appropriate representation. It is not for this Court to extend time for repayment. The petitioner has not shown any bona fide nor has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order under challenge. The writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Kms

Shri Yellaraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Yellaraj v. the State of Karnataka

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

Bhimappa S/O Satyappa Mokashi Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishnu S/O Lakshmappa Kambar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhoomika Friends Recreation Club (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Kallappa S/O Avvanna @ Appanna Pujannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rukhaiya D/O Bapusaheb Hadalge Vs the Managing Director

Bhimappa S/O Avvanna Koujalagi Vs the State of Karnataka