Disposed

Sri Laxmivinayak Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate

Karnataka HC28 Sept 2021WP/102793/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common order disposing of concurrent writ petitions filed to quash recovery and possession notices. The court accepted the parties' submission that the dispute was amicably settled by the petitioner agreeing to pay outstanding dues to the bank, leading to the petitions being disposed of without further elaboration.

What did the court decide?

Petitions quashed and disposed of based on the parties' agreed settlement of dues with the bank.

Sri Laxmivinayak Trading Company Vs Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.102793 OF 2021 C/W. WRIT PETITION NOS.145799-800/2020 (GM-RES)

¶6

IN W.P. NO.102793 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI. LAXMIVINAYAK TRADING COMPANY, NO.6-3-17/12, APMC YARD, 1^ST GATE, KARATAGI, BY ITS PARTNERS, ARJUN P. SUDDI, SMT. D. HEMALATHA

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD,DIST. DHARWAD.

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR, HUBBALLI, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD,

¶14

STATE BANK OF INDIA, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SME BRANCH, TQ. KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶15

AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, SME BRANCH, TQ. KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶16

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(SRI B. MUHAMMED ALI, ADV. FOR C/R1, R3 & R4; SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.03.2021 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.SRF/CR/43/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q, ETC.

¶20

IN W.P.NOs.145799-800/2020

¶21

BETWEEN

¶22

SRI. LAXMIVINAYAK TRADING COMPANY, NO.6-3-17/12, APMC YARD, 1^{S T} GATE, KARATAGI, BY ITS PARTNERS, ARJUN P. SUDDI,

¶23

SMT. D. HEMALATHA, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶24

SRI. SARATHI TRADERS, NO.6-3-17/12, APMC YARD, 1^ST GATE, KARATAGI, BY ITS PROPRIETOR,

¶25

ARJUN P. SUDDI, DIST. KOPPAL

¶26

... PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND

¶29

STATE BANK OF INDIA, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SME BRANCH, KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL – 583231.

¶30

AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, R.J.ROAD,KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL - 583231

¶31

... RESPONDENTS

¶32

(SRI SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)

¶33

¶34

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 04.03.2020 PUBLISHED IN VIJAYA KARNTAKA DAILY NEWS PAPER DATED 10.03.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, ETC.,

¶35

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’,THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

COMMON ORDER

¶37

Learned counsel for the parties submit that, the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved by the petitioner agreeing to pay Rs.1,65,00,000/- to the respondent Bank towards full

¶38

and final settlement of the dues of the petitioner.

¶39

It is submitted that, the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/to the respondent-Bank. It is further submitted that, the petitioner would pay a further sum of Rs.80,00,000/within a period of four weeks from today i.e. on or before4 27.10.2021 and the balance of

¶40

Rs.80,00,000/within a period of four weeks thereafter i.e. on or before 24.11.2021.

¶41

¶42

It is also submitted that, upon the

¶43

petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from today as stated supra, the petitioner shall be entitled to make an

¶44

application/request to the respondent-Bank, seeking release of the title deeds in respect of the mortgaged property and the same shall be considered by the respondent-Bank.

¶45

The said submission of the respective counsels is placed on record. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

*Svh/-

Sri Laxmivinayak Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Laxmivinayak Trading Company v. Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Surekha W/O Narasaingh Rajput Vs Sri.Narasaingh S/O Somappa Rajput

The Manager Vs Mahantesh Iranna Umarani

Neelkant S/O Murusavirappa Ambli Vs the Commissioner

Sri.Laxmivinayak Trading Company, Vs State Bank of India

Prakash S/O Tammanna Sanadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Hillur Seva Sahakari Sangha Vs the State of Karnataka