Dismissed

Syed Imtiaz Ahmed v. M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2021CRL.P/6146/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of SARFAESI Act proceedings. The court held the petition was infructuous as the trial court had already disposed of the underlying miscellaneous case in November 2014.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was declared infructuous and disposed of as the underlying proceedings were already concluded by the trial court.

Syed Imtiaz Ahmed Vs M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.6146/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6146/2015

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SYED IMTIAZ AHMED S/O SYED MAHMOOD SAB AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶10

GOWHAR JAHAN W/O SYED IMTIAZ AHMED AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.70, 17^TH ‘C’ MAIN, 11^TH CROSS SECTOR- 4, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 102

¶12

ALSO AT M/S IDEAL FOOT FASHION, SHOP NO.29, 1^ST FLOOR BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 068 … PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.S.M.RAZVI, ADV. (ABSENT))

¶14

AND :

¶15

M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK HAVING ITS REG. OFFICE AT NO.36-38-A, NARIMAN BHAVAN NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI – 400 021 BANGALORE BRANCH ADDRESS: NO.58 & 59, 1^ST FLOOR

¶16

Crl.P.No.6146/2015

¶17

¶18

SHREE COMPLEX, T BLOCK BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE – 560 085 REP.BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY D.B.SHIVASHANKAR

¶19

… RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY DR.M.SUNIL SASTRY, ADV. ABSENT)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.5195/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE VI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE INITIATED UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

None appears for the petitioner. The records show that after 01.10.2015 consistently there was no representation for the petitioner.

¶25

The petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.5195/2014 on the file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru initiated under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶26

The computer output of the daily orders obtained from the E-Court website shows that the said

¶27

Crl.P.No.6146/2015

¶28

¶29

case was disposed of by the trial Court on 16.11.2014 itself. It further shows that on contest the matter was allowed.

¶30

Therefore, this petition has become infructuous

¶31

and disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

akc

Syed Imtiaz Ahmed v. M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Imtiaz Ahmed v. M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank

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 Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Mohini Shenoy Vs the State of Karnataka

Vittaldas Kamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajashekharananda Swamiji Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Robinson Roberts Donison Vs M/S Standard Chartered Bank

The Deputy Commissioner Vs Abdul Khadar Kunhali Palasthadka