Dismissed

Mr Shantilal Ganeshmal Gugliya v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023WP/101224/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed the writ petition challenging proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the writ is not maintainable as SARFAESI is a complete code within the DRT's domain. Dismissal was based on a Division Bench order relying on the K. Virupaksha Supreme Court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed holding the matter falls within DRT domain.

Mr Shantilal Ganeshmal Gugliya Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101224 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 101224 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SHANTILAL GANESHMAL GUGLIYA AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. RISHABH AGENCIES, 1^ST FLOOR, ADITYA ANNEXE, OPP SHAKTI, TALKIES, HUBLI-580 020, AND RESIDENT OF NO.25, SHARADA NILAYA , VINAY COLONY ,KESHWAPUR, HUBLI ,KARNATAKA-580023.

¶8

MRS. VIMALA

¶9

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Date: 2023.03.28 10:35:31 +0530

¶10

W/O. SHANTILAL GUGLIYA AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H. NO.25, SHARADA NILAYA, VINAY COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, KARNATAKA-580023.

¶11

MR. PANKAJ S/O. SHANTILAL GUGLIYA

¶12

AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: PRIVET WORK, R/O. H. NO.25, SHARADA NILAYA, VINAY COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, KARNATAKA-580023.

¶13

MR. DILIP S/O. SHANTILAL GUGLIYA AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRIVET WORK, R/O. H. NO.25, SHARADA NILAYA, VINAY COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, KARNATAKA-580023.

¶14

¶15

WP No. 101224 of 2023

¶16

MR. PRAVEENKUMAR S/O. SHANTILAL GUGLIYA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PRIVET WORK R/O. H. NO.25, SHARADA NILAYA, VINAY COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, KARNATAKA-580023.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI I.Y. PATIL, ADV.)

¶19

AND: THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED R/P. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER/ BRANCH MANAGER LOAN COLLECTION AND RECOVERY DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE DIVISION-1. NO.3 CHURCH STREET, 2^ND FLOOR, MSR WEST PARK, BENGALURU-560001, KARNATAKA.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV. )

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUES THE WRITE OF CERTIORARI-QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/1/2023 PASSED BY THE THE IIIRD ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DHARWAD IN CRL MISCE NO 248/2022 i.e. ANNEXUREL.B.; CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002, BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE SECURITIZATION ACT.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

WP No. 101224 of 2023

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”) vide Annexure-L.

¶28

Though this petition is not maintainable, this Court vide order dated 22.02.2023 showing some leniency, was pleased to grant interim order subject to petitioner depositing Rs.1 Crore on or before next date of hearing. Counsel for petitioner submits that this order is not complied.

¶29

Be that as it may. The Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.1305/2021 disposed on 23.12.2021, while taking cognizance of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.Virupaksha and another Vs. State of Karnataka¹ has held that the SARFAESI Act is complete code in itself which provides procedure to be followed by the

¶30

1 (2020) 4 SCC 440

¶31

¶32

WP No. 101224 of 2023

¶33

secured creditor. The Division Bench further held that the SARFAESI Act also contemplates remedy for a borrower. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.Virupaksha (cited supra) taking note of the authority vested with DRT under sub-section (3) in Section 17 has held that the Legislature by including sub-section (3) in Section 17 has gone to the extent of vesting the DRT with authority to even set-aside a transaction including sale and to restore possession to the borrower in appropriate cases. Therefore, no illegality is made out and hence, I am not inclined to entertain the captioned writ petition, which squarely falls under provisions of SARFAESI Act which squarely fall within the domain of DRT. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.Virupaksha (cited supra), the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶34

However, it is made clear that this order would not come in the way of the petitioner to approach the competent forum under the provisions of SARFAESI Act.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 101224 of 2023

¶37

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Mr Shantilal Ganeshmal Gugliya v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Shantilal Ganeshmal Gugliya v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kariyappa @ Kareppa S/O Ningappa Meti Vs Somaraya S/O Kenchappa Meti

Smt.Pushpa W/O Mahadev Kinagi Vs Shri.Ashok Nagappa Sulebhavi

Basappa S/O Bharamappa Airani Vs the State of Karnataka

Veeranagouda S/O Devanagouda Patil, Vs Bheemappa S/O Yallappa Talwar

Shri Shivanand S/O Ramu Dadde Vs Smt. Renuka W/O Shivanand Dadde

Sri. Yallappa S/O Ramachandrappa Tadas Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer