Disposed

Mr. Mohd Yusuf Mohammadali Badami v. the Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023WP/103789/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a sale order on secured loans. After an interim order was granted, the petitioner agreed to a compromise with the property buyer to pay a specified sum, conditional on the bank cancelling the sale certificate. The court permitted the compromise and directed the release of the interim deposit to the buyer.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on terms of compromise: deposit released to buyer; bank directed to cancel sale certificate if payment made; registration to be carried out per agreement.

Mr. Mohd Yusuf Mohammadali Badami Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14674 WP No. 103789 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 103789 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. MOHD YUSUF MOHAMMADALI BADAMI S/O MOHAMMED ALI BADAMI, PROP. OF KARNATAKA ENGG WORKS, AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O. GANGIMADI ROAD, RAJ NAGAR, BEHIND SWIMMING POOL, WARD NO.22, GADAG-582102.

¶10

MR. MAHAMMED ALI F. BADAMI S/O FAKRUSAB, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. GANGIMADI ROAD, RAJ NAGAR, BEHIND SWIMMING POOL, WARD NO.22, GADAG-582102.

¶11

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶12

(BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

… PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, GADAG BRANCH, TIPPU SULTAN CIRCLE, GADAG-582102, R/BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶16

SALEEM S/O. RAJESAB BODLEKHAN, #1262, JAVAL GALLI, AZAD ROAD,

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14674 WP No. 103789 of 2023

¶18

NEAR IQUBAL LIBRARY, GADAG-582102.

¶19

THE SUB-REGISTRAR, GADAG, SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, P.B. ROAD, GADAG-582101.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR, GADAG-582101, GADAG.

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GADAG-582101, DIST: GADAG.

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAKESH M. BILKI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. NAGARAJ APPANNAVAR AND SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATES FOR R2; SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R3 TO R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 14.03.2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 IN NO.MAG/SAROPA/CR-10/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ORDER DATED. 26.05.2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 IN NO.RRC/SARUP/VAHI/22/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14674 WP No. 103789 of 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioners had borrowed money from respondent No.1 Bank. They had mortgaged house property bearing R.S. No.400/D, plot No.26 and 27, Gadag, as a security for the loan. They committed default in repayment of the said loan. Hence, respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, took over the property and brought the same for sale and sale certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.2, who was the successful bidder. The writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the said Bank.

¶29

The respondent No.1 – Bank has collected a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- from respondent No.2 and has treated the same as full and final settlement towards the loan of petitioners and upon receipt of the same, the Bank has no claims against the petitioners any more. However, the Bank has to execute the sale certificate in favour of respondent No.2. At this juncture, petitioners filed the

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14674 WP No. 103789 of 2023

¶31

instant writ petition and an interim order has been granted by this Court subject to petitioners depositing certain amounts and the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- before this Court.

¶32

There is no error in the action of the respondent No.1 – Bank in auctioning the property in favour of respondent No.2. However, at the intervention of elders and well wishers, petitioners and respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise, wherein respondent No.2 has agreed to give up his right over the property concerned, provided the petitioners pay him a total sum of Rs.48,00,000/- as mentioned in the compromise petition filed today. The said compromise petition is taken on record. The parties are present before the Court and are duly identified by their respective advocates.

¶33

It is prayed by the advocate for petitioners as well as respondent No.2 that if the petitioners fail to make the payments as agreed under the said compromise, the respondent No.1 – Bank may be directed to execute the

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14674 WP No. 103789 of 2023

¶35

sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 shall pay back the amounts received without interest within three months thereafter and the respondent No.1 – Bank should register the sale certificate in favour of respondent No.2. If the petitioners pay all the amounts as agreed upon, with time being the essence of the compromise agreement, the Bank will cancel the sale certificate and hand over the title deeds in respect of the assets mortgaged in favour of the petitioners.

¶36

The respondent No.1 – Bank has no objection for the same. It is also agreed between the parties that their request made by 2^nd respondent regarding the receipt of money or otherwise is sufficient for the Bank to act accordingly.

¶37

It is also prayed by petitioners and the respondent No.2 that the amount in deposit before this Court shall be transferred to respondent No.2 upon due verification.

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14674 WP No. 103789 of 2023

¶39

The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.

¶40

Registry is directed to release the amount in deposit

¶41

to respondent No.2.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

RSH / CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Mr. Mohd Yusuf Mohammadali Badami v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohd Yusuf Mohammadali Badami v. the Authorised 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

Shankrayya S/O Maharudrayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganesh S/O Devendrappa Ronad Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri. Sudhir Guranna Halgekar Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Kumari Susmita D/O Basavaraj Ankali Vs Smt. Sugandha W/O Siddappa Shiragavi

Banashankari Agro Industries Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Veerabhadra Dev of Godachi Vs the State of Karnataka