Allowed

M D Balarama Rao v. Pragathi Grameena Bank

Karnataka HC18 Oct 2021WP/14186/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged SARFAESI proceedings under Rule 8(5) of Security Interest Rules. Court allowed petition in part as debt repaid and auction money refunded. Impugned Sale Certificate quashed; security interest redeemed and property restored to petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari quashing Sale Certificate; security interest redeemed; petitioner retains property; restoration of property records.

M D Balarama Rao Vs Pragathi Grameena Bank — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.14186 OF 2013(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M.D.BALARAMA RAO, S/O DHARMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT D B HALLI COLONY, KALLIHAL POST, BADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. D. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK, POST BOX NO.136, VINOBHANAGAR, SHIVAMOGA – 500 204. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶13

AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK, POST BOX NO.136, VINOBHANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA – 500 204.

¶14

PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK, KALIHAL BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶15

UJJINAPPA, S/OMARALU SIDDAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT DB HALLI COLONY, KALLIHAL POST, BHADRAVTHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶16

SHIVASHANKAR, S/O HALAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT ARABILACHE POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶17

¶18

ASHOK RAO, S/O VITOBA RAO, AGE:MAJOR, R/AT MARASHETTY HALLI CIRCLE, KALLIHAL POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶19

B.J.SADHASHIVA, S/O JAYANNA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT MARASHETTY HALLI CIRCLE, KALLIHAL POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶20

K.R.PARASHURAM RAO, S/O RANGANATH RAO, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT KEREBEERANAHALLI, HARAHATOLALU POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶21

T.B. SHEKAR, S/O BASAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, KALLIHAL POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶22

UNION OF INDIA, BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶23

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. U.R.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R3; SRI.V.RANGARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI.BHARATH.K, ADVOCATE FOR R6,R8,R9; R7 SERVED; SRI. PREMA HATTI, ASG FOR R10)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT RULE 8(5) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULE 2002 TO THE EXTENT IT CONFERS THE DISCRETION TO THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO SELL WHOLE OR PART OF THE IMMOVABLE, SECURED ASSET AS VIOLATIVE OF ART 14 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,

¶25

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioner a borrower of the 3^rd Respondent Bank is grieving before the Writ Court inter alia against the SARFAESI proceedings; a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide ad interim order dated 26.03.2013 had directed status quo.

¶29

After service of notice the contesting respondents

¶30

having entered appearance through their counsel opposed the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned coercive recovery proceedings.

¶31

When the matter was taken up for final hearing today with the consent of the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the auction in question was formally accomplished by issuance of the Sale Certificate, some development has taken place whereunder the entire amount payable to the Bank has been already remitted and further the entire auction money credited by the respondent-auction buyer has also been refunded; this submission is not controverted by the Panel Counsel for the Bank and the learned advocate appearing for the auction buyer. Thus the substratum on which the

¶32

¶33

recovery proceedings were initiated itself has withered away, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore petition needs to be restored to the position as before.

¶34

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned Sale Certificate dated * 20.11.2012 ; the security interest is redeemed and consequently petitioner retains the property free of Bank’s encumbrance.

¶35

If the entries in the Property Records are mutated pursuant to the Sale Certificate, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioner.

¶36

Costs made easy.

¶37

All pending applications pale into insignificance since the main matter is disposed off.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Bsv

¶40

*Corrected Vide Court Order dated 26.07.2022

M D Balarama Rao v. Pragathi Grameena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M D Balarama Rao v. Pragathi Grameena 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. S Gangappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Vishwas Granites Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Sri Sai Pramod G N Vs State of Karnataka

Hotel Basant Resorts Vs Ministry of Tourism

Anuj Kalra Vs M/S Harvest Hotels and Serviced

The Idgah, Khabrastan, Mehboob Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf