Allowed

Sandhyagappa v. the Corporation Bank

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022WP/1400/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner alleging his property was mortgaged by someone for a bank loan and involving bank officials in fraud. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to refer the complaint to the CBI for investigation upon submission of documents, reserving liberty to this effect and restraining coercive actions against the pro

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to refer petitioner's complaint to CBI for investigation after receipt of documents and restraining coercive proceedings against property pending enquiry.

Sandhyagappa Vs the Corporation Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1400 OF 2019(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANDHYAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. MICKELAPPA, RESIDING AT BASAVANAPURA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 083.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN N, ADVOCATE FOR

¶11

SRI.A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE CORPORATION BANK HEAD OFFICE, MANGALORE – 575 001. REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

THE CORPORATION BANK ZONAL OFFICE, 5^TH FLOOR, NITISH TIME SQUARE, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REP BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶15

THE MANAGER CORPORATION BANK, PADMANABHANAGAR BRANCH, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶16

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GANGANAGAR,

¶17

BENGALURU-560 092.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. V B RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3; SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO REFER THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIOENR TO THE R-4 FOR INVESTIGATION ANNEXURE-C 26.10.15.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is that his property has been mortgaged by someone for securing the loan from the respondent – Bank in favour of one Mr. Madan Kumar; he complains that, some bank officials are also involved in this fraud; learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent – Bank opposes the writ petition contending that the Bank had sent a letter dated 21.11.2015, a copy whereof is at Annexure-D asking the petitioner to furnish necessary documents to substantiate his allegation and this having not been done, petitioner should be non-suited.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to send an appropriate reply to the subject Notice along with necessary documents for substantiating the allegations and on receipt of the same, the respondent – Bank shall conduct an in-house enquiry in the matter to find out the

¶26

¶27

truth, with the participation of the petitioner and other stakeholders expeditiously. All contentions are kept open.

¶28

It hardly needs to be stated that till such an enquiry is accomplished and the outcome of the enquiry is conveyed to the petitioner, no coercive proceedings for the recovery of the loan in question as against the subject property shall be taken up. However, other modes of recovery can be resorted to.

¶29

No costs.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Bsv

Sandhyagappa v. the Corporation Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhyagappa v. the Corporation 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

M/S Laxmi Ganesh Saw Mill Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Amith R Reddy Vs Smt Asha L

Major Rohith C G Vs the Union of India

Sri S Puttashamu Vs State of Karnataka

Raghavendra Recreation Club (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Govinda Vs the State of Karnataka