Disposed

M/S Sunshine Sealings Industries v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2021WP/103434/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, directed a Bank to reconsider the petitioner's One Time Settlement proposal and suspended coercive actions pending this review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Bank to consider the One Time Settlement representation within 30 days and stay all demand, possession, and sale notices pending.

M/S Sunshine Sealings Industries Vs Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.103434/2021 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. SUNSHINE SEALING INDUSTRIES, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.T1, T2, T3, SHIRWAD INDUSTRIAL AREA, SHIRWAD, KARWAR – 581306, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. MAHABALESHWAR C. NAGEKAR

¶8

….PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI AND SRI. PRASAD K.R. RAO, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

CANARA BANK, KARWAR BRANCH, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT – 581301, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶12

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT MATHIAS PLAZA, 18^TH JUNE ROAD, PANAJI GOA - 403001

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

(SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN THEREBY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RECONSIDER THE OTS PROPOSAL AND ALLOWING THE PETITINER TO PAY THE REMAINING SUM OF RS.23,00,000/- IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICIE AND EQUITY AS PER ANNEXURE-N.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioners are before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs:

¶20

(i) Issue Writ or order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 25.03.2021 issued by the petitioner herein thereby directing the respondents to re-consider the OTS proposal and allowing the petitioner to pay the remaining sum of Rs.23,00,000/- in the interest of justice and equity as per Annexure-N.

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

(ii) Issue Writ or order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw all the demand notices, possession notices and sale notices issued against the petitioner herein with respect to the immovable properties mortgaged before the respondents.

¶23

(iii) Grant any other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

The petitioner is a debtor of the respondent – Bank. Admittedly there are certain amounts of money which are due by the petitioner to the respondentBank. The petitioner claims that, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 25.03.2021 to the respondent Bank for a One Time Settlement (OTS Scheme) as regards which no order has been passed by the respondent-Bank. Instead of doing so, it is alleged that, the respondent – Bank has issued various demand notices, possession notices and sale notices.

¶25

: 4 :

¶26

Sri. Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath, learned

¶27

counsel for the respondents, would however submit that, no such representation dated 25.03.2021 has been submitted to the respondent – Bank nor is it available on the record in the respondent – Bank.

¶28

Having perused the alleged representation at Annexure-N, I find no seal of receipt of the respondent Bank on Annexure-N. Be that as it may. Since the representation for One Time Settlement Scheme by the petitioner though not submitted to the respondent – Bank has been produced before this court, I am of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, if the respondent – Bank is directed to consider the representation produced by the petitioner within a given time frame, it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, a mandamus is issued directing the respondent-Bank to consider the representation dated 25.03.2021, produced

¶29

: 5 :

¶30

along with the above writ petition at Annexure-N, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶31

It is needless to say that, pending such

¶32

consideration no coercive steps can be taken against the petitioner on the basis of any demand notices, possession notices and sale notices, or otherwise having been issued by the respondent to the petitioner.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

*Svh/-

M/S Sunshine Sealings Industries v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sunshine Sealings Industries v. Canara 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

Vijay Kumar S/O Vanechand Bafna Vs the Commissioner

Shri.Golayya Shivayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Shree.Annapurneshwari Stree Shakti Sangha Vs State of Karnataka

Basappa S/O. Channaveerappa Uppin Vs Virabhadrappa S/O. Channaveerappa Uppin

Ramasa S/O Parashuram Pawar Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Sanujeev R Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka