Writ petition filed to quash a bank seizure notice and demand vehicle delivery. Court dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner failed to repay dues, surrender the vehicle, or utilize an interim order to deposit funds, despite the bank having auctioned the vehicle.
Petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.1035 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI CHANDRASHEKAR NAIK S/O.KRISHNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.27, 6TH CROSS 7TH MAIN, YESHWANTHAPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KHADRI S.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BENGALURU – 560 047
BENGALURU – 560 009 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.MOHAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 19.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, NGV, BENGALURU – 560 047 TO THE PETITIONER AS WEEL AS SURRENDER LETTER DATED 19.12.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ to quash the seizure notice dated 19.12.2016 issued by the first respondent and has sought for delivery of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03AC-5849 to his custody.
account of the petitioner had slipped into NPA account on 31.05.2016. In the seizure notice, the petitioner was notified to pay a sum of Rs.1,61,531.23 within a week and to regularize the account.
and it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-
Bank that the petitioner was very irregular in repayment of loan installments due to which his loan account has been considered as NPA on 30.04.2016. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has contended that vide Annexure-R4 dated 06.07.2016, wife of petitioner gave an undertaking stating that she would pay the installment amount towards loan on or before 15.08.2016 and further stated that as the petitioner met with an accident, he had gone into coma and hence unable to pay the monthly equated installments.
order to repossess the vehicle. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2017 granted an interim order directing respondents not to sell the vehicle until further orders and further directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.75,000/- with the first respondent within two weeks and it was further ordered that, if the petitioner failed to deposit the amount directed, the benefit of interim order would not remain accrued to the petitioner.
21.01.2017 and since then, the auction purchaser is in possession of the vehicle.
ORDER
Petition is dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
LB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the seizure notice issued by the bank and seeking delivery of the seized vehicle merits acceptance.
Whether the petitioner is diligent in paying outstanding loan amounts and repossessing the vehicle despite prior notices and interim orders.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Chandrashekar Naik
The Senior Manager Syndicate Bank National Games Village Branch Koramangala
The General Manager Syndicate Bank Gandhi Nagar
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
