Dismissed

Sri N Suresh v. the South Indian Bank Limited

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2022WP/587/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a SARFAESI Act notice under Articles 226/227 as recalcitrant borrowers. The court rejected the petition, relying on a prior coordinate bench judgment of 19.07.2019 that had already disposed of similar grievances and directed repayment with liberty to proceed in case of default, citing warnings against unconscionable debtors' claims.

What did the court decide?

None. Petition rejected.

Sri N Suresh Vs the South Indian Bank… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.587 OF 2022(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.N. SURESH, S/O LATE SRI. NANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.79, MILK DAIRY ROAD, SANTHEKADUR, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 2222.

¶9

SMT. GAYATHRI, W/O SRI. N SURESH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.79, MILK DAIRY ROAD, SANTHEKADUR, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 222.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH H S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT THRISSUR, KERALA STATE, AND HAVING BRANCH AT B H ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, AND GPA HOLDER SRI. DARSHAN S.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FRO R2-R3;

¶18

SRI. NARAYANA SHENOY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R (CP 1582/2021))

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICE DATED 29.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-2 HEREIN IN PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNEXURE –A AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner – borrowers is against the coercive proceedings for the recovery and to the SARFAESI ACT, 2002 notice dated 21.09.2021 issued by the second respondent at Annexure-A.

¶24

The first respondent having entered Caveat through his counsel vehemently opposes the writ petition drawing attention of the Court to the judgment dated 19.07.2019 made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in very petitioners’ W.P.Nos. 29950-29951/2019 (GM-RES) a copy whereof is at Annexure-F; Learned HCGP on request having accepted notice for the official respondents 2 & 3 also opposes the writ petition pointing out to the observation in the judgment of the Coordinate Bench.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶26

¶27

a) Petitioners were before this Court earlier in the aforesaid writ petitions which came to be disposed off on 19.07.2019; at para no.6 of the judgment it is observed as under:

¶28

“ 6. In view of submissions made and in the facts of the case, the petitions are disposed of with a direction that in case petitioner deposits the amount due and produces the receipt before the Lok Adalath within a period six weeks from today, the loan account of the petitioner shall be closed. It is made clear that in case the petitioner makes any default in making payment of the amount of loan, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.”

¶29

b) Granting relief to the recalcitrant borrowers of the

¶30

kind would amount to delaying the recovery of the debts, if not defrauding the creditor; since decades, the Apex Court has warned that unconscionable claims of debtors should not be entertained in constitutional jurisdiction on the ground of misplaced sympathy; case of the petitioners apparently falls within this warning in all fours and therefore, no relief can be granted to them, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the lender.

¶31

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

¶32

rejected, costs having been reluctantly made easy.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Bsv

Sri N Suresh v. the South Indian Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Suresh v. the South Indian Bank Limited

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

Rajeeb Kumar Mohanta Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Riayaz Ahmed Vs the Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Sri Nawaz Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Deepa v Vs State of Karnataka

Shivachandran Vs Bangarashetty

The Mvm Private Industrial Vs the State of Karnataka