Partly allowed

Mr Yasin Hussain Saheb v. the Authorized Officer

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2022WP/2201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed by a mortgagor against a bank. After the petitioner deposited 50% of dues, the court ordered the bank to return possession of the property, granting the petitioner two months to clear the balance with interest.

What did the court decide?

The respondent-Bank shall handover possession of the property forthwith. The petitioner is granted two months to pay the balance amount with interest. If the petitioner fails, the Bank may proceed for

Mr Yasin Hussain Saheb Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2201 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

MR.YASIN HUSSAIN SAHEB S/O HUSSAIN SAHEB AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS H.NO.3-65/15 SANTHOSH NAGAR POST: HEMMADI-576 230 KUNDAPURA UDUPI DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERESH.M.UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND :

¶8

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER MANGALORE CATHOLIC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD MCC BANK BUILDING ST.ALOYSIUS COLLEGE ROAD HAMPANAKATTA MANGALORE – 575 001.

¶9

... RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶12

¶13

SET ASIDE THE COMMUNICTION DATED 27.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-F; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2021 PASSED BY PRL SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI IN CRL.MISC.NO.73/2021 ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the communication dated 27.12.2021 (Annexure-F), notice issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶17

Heard Sri. Veeresh M. Uppin, learned

¶18

counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Cyril Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶19

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶21

that in pursuance to Annexure-F, the respondent-Bank has taken possession of the Mortgaged property even though the petitioner is ready to clear the entire amount due to the respondent-Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed affidavit of the petitioner’s son stating that the petitioner would deposit 50% of the amount due on or before 25.03.2022 and balance 50% within two months from the date of affidavit.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner is due in a of sum of Rs.33,85,066/- as on 28.02.2022.

¶23

This Court on 22.03.2022 on recording the submission and taking on record affidavit of the petitioner’s son adjourned the matter to today. Today the learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that the petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount due on 22.03.2022. Learned counsel for the

¶24

¶25

respondent-Bank on instructions submits that the matter may be disposed of according to the affidavit of the petitioner’s son, wherein the petitioner’s son has undertaken to pay the balance 50% within two months from the date of affidavit with liberty to take action if the petitioner fails to comply the undertaking.

¶26

In the light of the above, the petition is

¶27

disposed of in the following manner:

¶28

i. The respondent-Bank shall handover the possession of the property in question of the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner is granted two months time from the date of affidavit i.e., 22.03.2022 to make payment of the balance amount along with interest upto the date of payment.

¶29

ii. If the petitioner fails to make payment as undertaken and within the time granted above, the respondent-Bank is at liberty to

¶30

¶31

proceed without any impediment for recovery of its dues.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

RKA

Mr Yasin Hussain Saheb v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Yasin Hussain Saheb v. the Authorized Officer

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

B S Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B. R. Chandrashekar Vs Smt. T. K. Sumana

Sri S Shivakumar Vs Sri S Siddaiah

Sri a Rajakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Radha Vs Inspector of Police

Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devaru Temple Vs the State of Karnataka