Dismissed

M/S Apple Spire India LLP v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021WP/12328/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a real estate company against Canara Bank. The court held that the petition seeking account breakup details was misconceived as banks routinely issue such details. Prayer to liquidate flats was dismissed as the dispute was already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed and costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- were awarded to be paid by the petitioner.

M/S Apple Spire India LLP Vs Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P No.12328/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.12328 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

M/S. APPLE SPIRE INDIA L.L.P HAVING AN OFFICE AT NO.11/2 K.R.ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. SURESH B.S AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SANDHYA U. PRABHU FOR SHRI. M.V.V. RAMANA, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND :

¶12

CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, IFCI BHAVAN CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD N.R.SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SHRI. U.R. VIKRAM, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER ON 22.06.2021 VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC.

¶15

W.P No.12328/2021

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is a constituent of Canara Bank. It has filed

¶20

this writ petition with following prayers:

¶21

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 22/06/2021 produced as Annexure-J.

¶22

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to first liquidate the 52 apartments which are in their possession at current market rate and credit the dues to the loan account.

¶23

c) Such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may consider fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; in the interest of justice and equity."

¶24

The first prayer is for consideration of petitioner's

¶25

representation as per Annexure-J. It is a letter addressed by a law firm engaged by the petitioner calling upon the respondent bank to give break up of the entire amount from the beginning as reflected in bank's letter dated 16.06.2021

¶26

to enable the petitioner to know the heads under which the

¶27

W.P No.12328/2021

¶28

¶29

bank is making claims and to arrive at a fair and transparent settlement.

¶30

In substance, petitioner is seeking break up of the accounts. Petitioner is a real estate company and borrowed Rs.64 Crores from Canara Bank for construction of Apartment Complex comprising of 246 residential apartments. A company with such financial exposure shall necessarily have paraphernalia to keep track of its accounts. Further, bankers issue the details of accounts such as pass sheets etc., in routine course. More so, respondent is a Nationalised Bank. If the branch office had not provided account details, petitioner ought to have approached higher officers or Ombudsman. Thus, the prayer clause (a) is misconceived.

¶31

The second prayer is to direct the bank to liquidate 52 flats which are in bank's possession at current

¶32

market price and credit the dues to the loan account.

¶33

W.P No.12328/2021

¶34

¶35

It is stated in the representation given by the law firm as per Annexure-J, that S.A.No.282/2021 is pending before the DRT. It is also stated that the learned Presiding Officer, of DRT has opined that the parties may resolve the dispute without precipitating the matter and the petitioner has submitted its offer of OTS.

¶36

Thus, the lis between the parties is pending before the appropriate jurisdictional Tribunal namely, the DRT. When parties are agitating the lis before a jurisdictional Tribunal, a writ petition of this nature and particularly, the prayer clause(b) is superfluous. Petitioner has not made out any case of violation of any Constitutional or statutory right warranting consideration of this writ petition. On the other hand, the writ petition of this nature causes enormous loss of judicial time and it is necessary to discourage filing such petitions.

¶37

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with cost

¶38

of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) payable by petitioner

¶39

W.P No.12328/2021

¶40

¶41

in the name of the Registrar General of this Court within

¶42

four weeks from today.

¶43

The Registrar General shall report compliance of

¶44

payment of costs.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

SPS

M/S Apple Spire India LLP v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Apple Spire India LLP 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

Sri J B Surana Vs the District Registrar of Societies

Sri H M Farooq Vs Sri H.G. Kama Reddy

R Rajkumar Vs Smt Girija Rajgopal

M/S Bls International Services Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D G Kumar Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Hiremath Hospitals Private Limited Vs Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited