The High Court at Bengaluru disposed of a Writ Petition filed by bank account holders praying for quashing of a bid forfeiture order. The petition was held infructuous as the counsel for the petitioners did not appear after being listed, distinguishing it from the axe of recovery tribunals. The order has no substantive legal principle.
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 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.28803 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
2 . MR. NAGARAJ M.R. S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO, NO.112/A, 5TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, SRINIVASA NAGAR, BSK 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVABASAVA S.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., NO.59, 1ST FLOOR, SREE COMPLEX, BHSC T BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-E BY THE RESPONDENT FORFEITING THE 25% BID AMOUNT, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO REFUND THE 25% BID
2
AMOUNT TO THE PETITIONER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% FROM 5.11.2014 TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
29.03.2019 has said as under:
" None for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'AGARWAL TRACOM PRIVATE LIMITED VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS' [(2018) 1 SCC 626] and therefore, the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
However, awaiting appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the interest of Justice, list the petition after one week."
The Court was waiting for the appearance of the counsel for
the petitioners. Even today, the counsel did not appear.
In the light of the above observations made by the
learned Co-ordinate Bench, this writ petition is disposed off
as having become infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Agarwal Tracom Private Limited vs Punjab National Bank and OthersReferred¶24
AGARWAL TRACOM PRIVATE LIMITED VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS [(2018) 1 SCC 626] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Manjula M.R. W/o Arun & Ors.
The Authorised Officer Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Krishna S. Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
