Allowed

M/S Gnyana Mandir Trust v. Nil

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023MFA/6209/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dismissing a petition under Section 92(f) CPC. The Court permitted the Trust to mortgage suit schedule property for a loan to secure building repairs, noting prior similar transactions and sanctioned loans by banks.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; impugned order dated 10.08.2023 was set aside; petition under Misc.No.1277/2022 was allowed.

M/S Gnyana Mandir Trust Vs Nil — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41100 MFA No. 6209 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6209 OF 2023 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S GNYANA MANDIR TRUST NO.1164, 26TH A MAIN, 4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-41 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SMT HEMAA NARAYAN D/O LATE SHRI K V ASHWATHNARAYAN AGED MAJOR …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DEEPAK.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

NIL …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104 (ffa) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:10.08.2023 PASSED IN MISC.NO.1277/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 92(f) READ WITH SECTION.151 OF CPC.

¶12

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41100 MFA No. 6209 of 2023

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This appeal is filed by appellant/petitioner under Section 104 (ffa) of CPC, challenging the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Misc.No.1277/2022 whereby petition filed under Section 92(f) of CPC has been dismissed.

¶16

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.

¶17

The appellant/petitioner, which is a Trust represented by the Managing Trustee, has filed a petition under Section 92(f) of CPC seeking leave of the Court to mortgage the suit schedule property to avail loan from Bank of Maharashtra and/or other bank or financial institutions on the ground that the Board of Trustees vide their resolution dated 25.04.2022 have resolved to mortgage the suit schedule property in order to repair the premises and to avail bank loan to meet the expenses of the said repairs. The trial court, after issuing the publication held that there is no objection from any

¶18

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41100 MFA No. 6209 of 2023

¶19

person, has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the Trust is before this Court.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶21

appellant/petitioner has raised the following contentions:

¶22

(i) Firstly, the trial court has dismissed the petition only on the ground that the petitioner – Trust has not produced proposed plan for renovation or repairs of the building and approximate cost for such work and contended that, in fact, if the court requires any additional document, it could have requested the parties to produce the same. Inspite of that, the trial court has rejected the petition contrary to the provisions to Section 92 of CPC.

¶23

(ii) Secondly, in fact the Trust has already obtained the loan from the bank after mortgaging the suit schedule property. Now they want further loan for renovation of the building. All relevant records have been produced before the bank and after verifying the same, the loan has been sanctioned. Therefore, there need not be any further

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:41100 MFA No. 6209 of 2023

¶26

proposed plan for renovation and repairs of the building. He also filed a memo enclosing the documents which have been produced before the bank earlier when they had obtained the loan mortgaging the suit schedule property.

¶27

5 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned order.

¶28

The petitioner is a Trust represented by its Managing Trustees. The suit schedule property is the property of the Trust. The Trust is running educational institution. For renovation and repair of the building of the institution the Trust requires financial assistance. Therefore, they mortgaged the trust property in the year 2013. The trust has mortgaged the suit schedule property to the Bank after submitting all proposed plan for renovation and repairs of the building. On the basis of the plan and request of the Trust, the bank has sanctioned the loan. Subsequently, in the year 2019, they have requested for renewal of the existing facilities and new term loan. On

¶29

20.11.2019, the bank has renewed the existing loan and

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41100 MFA No. 6209 of 2023

¶31

also sanctioned additional loan. Now that the appellant Institution wants some more additional loan for renovation and repairs of the building and they have submitted necessary documents before the bank, the bank has already granted the loan to the appellant Trust, on mortgaging the suit schedule property. The same has been placed before this Court along with a memo. Therefore, there need not be any further additional documents. Hence, the Trust is required to mortgage the property for seeking additional amount for repairs of the Institution run by the trust. The appellant/petitioner – Trust has made out a case to allow the petition.

¶32

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶33

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶34

(ii) The order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in

¶35

Misc.No.1277/2022 is set aside.

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:41100 MFA No. 6209 of 2023

¶37

¶38

(iii) The petition filed by the Trust in

¶39

Misc.No.1277/2022 is allowed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

M/S Gnyana Mandir Trust v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gnyana Mandir Trust v. Nil

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

Smt Mangamma Vs the Managing Director

M.S. Sundaresh Vs Jagadish

Sri Girish N Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Mr. Vishwadutt M Sathavalli Vs Mr. B.C Jagadeesh

Mrs. Ruksana Banu Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Savithramma Vs Smt Jayamma