The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a loan borrower challenging SARFAESI proceedings due to alleged irregularities and non-receipt of funds. The court held that the grievance lacked cogent material as the petitioner had not objected upon receiving the money years earlier.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.105 OF 2021 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN :
M. SRINIVAS, S/O G.MURALIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT OLD NO.40/NEW NO.16, MKK ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, I BLOCK, 20TH CROSS, BANGALORE – 560 010. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.C.N.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.10.2020 VIDE ANNEXURES – A AND B AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner has borrowed loan of Rs.72,00,000/from respondent No.3-Co-operative Bank. Respondent No.3 - Co-operative Bank has initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the Securitization and
3
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ("SARFAESI Act" for short). The petitioner has challenged the same before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The DRT, vide order dated 27.08.2018, has set aside the proceedings initiated by the Bank and directed the Bank to hand over physical possession of the schedule property to the petitioner. Subsequently, two years later i.e., on 29.10.2020, the petitioner has submitted representations as per Annexures-A and B to the Principal Secretary – Co-operation Department alleging that there are irregularities in sanctioning of loan and has sought for investigation in the matter.
submitted that the Bank initially issued cheques in favour of petitioner and had later taken them back.
4
Thus, petitioner has not received the money. The petitioner has not mortgaged the schedule property. Therefore, it is necessary for respondent No.1 to investigate into the matter.
5
such grievance cannot be entertained. Hence, no case is made out to order investigation.
accordingly dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
PB
M. SRINIVAS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
JANATHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK
P.S. DINESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court