Dismissed

Shankar Ramachandra Desai, v. the Karwar Urban

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2023WP/104440/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order permitting an auction purchaser to deposit the balance sale consideration. The High Court held that the Executing Court must hear all contentions on the legality of the attachment and sale proceedings before deciding any issue.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the Executing Court to hear all parties and decide contentions under Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 CPC.

Shankar Ramachandra Desai, Vs the Karwar Urban — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 104440 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 104440 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHANKAR RAMACHANDRA DESAI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: ASHRAMA ROAD, KARWAR, DIST: KARWAR.

¶10

RAJENDRA SHANKAR DESAI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: ASHRAMA ROAD, KARWAR, DIST: KARWAR.

¶11

SMT.SHARADHA SHANKAR DESAI, DIED, PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONER NO.3.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. S.S.YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE KARWAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS JUNIOR ASSISTANT SHRI DATTARAM NAGESH BANDEKAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O: KARWAR, DIST KARWAR.

¶16

SURESH SHIVA NAIK, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR UJVALAXMI HALL NH-17, POST: KODIBAG,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 104440 of 2016

¶19

TQ: KARWAR, DIST: KARWAR.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SHIVA SHIRUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI AND SRI. RAMESH I.ZIRALI, ADVOCATES FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.03.2016, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARWAR IN E.P.NO.82/2011 PERMITTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO DEPOSIT THE REMAINING BID AMOUNT VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CONSEQUENTLY THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDINGS IN EXECUTION CASE NO.82/2011, PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARWAR AS THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE COURT BELOW IN ATTACHING THE PROPERTY AND CONDUCTING THE SALE AS ILLEGAL.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 whereby the request of respondent No.2 to deposit money before the Executing Court in Execution Petition No.82/2011 was permitted by the trial Court.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 104440 of 2016

¶29

The material on record discloses that respondent No.1/Bank instituted the aforesaid suit proceedings in Execution Petition No.82/2011 against the petitioners/judgment debtors. Pursuant to respondent No.1/decree holder taking steps for attachment and sale of the schedule property, the trial Court conducted a sale on 14.03.2016, subsequent to which respondent No.2/auction purchaser filed a memo on 31.03.2016 seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration in terms of Order XXI Rule 84 and 85 C.P.C. The said memo filed by respondent No.2/auction purchaser was accepted by the Executing Court by passing the impugned order which is assailed by the petitioners/judgment debtors in the present petition.

¶30

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Executing Court has not adverted to any of the rival contentions between the petitioners and respondents and all that the Executing Court has done is to permit respondent No.2 to deposit the balance sale consideration. The question as to whether respondent No.2 would be entitled to deposit the balance sale consideration in terms of the Order XXI Rule 84 and 85 C.P.C., whether attachment and sale of the schedule

¶31

¶32

WP No. 104440 of 2016

¶33

property is in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 84 and 85 C.P.C. etc., are questions to be decided by the Executing Court after hearing all parties. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions in the present petition, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose off this petition without interfering with the impugned order and by directing the Executing Court to hear all parties and decide all the contentions urged by them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶34

Subject to the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed off. All rival contentions between the parties on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

CLK

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Shankar Ramachandra Desai, v. the Karwar Urban

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Ramachandra Desai, v. the Karwar Urban

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Polur Subba Rayudu Vs Karatigi Parasappa

Shivanand S/O Shivaram Hegde Vs Mohan S/O Vaman Shanbhag

Mumtaz W/O Budensab Bhagojikoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Netaji Integrated Rural Development Society, R/by Iranna S/O Shivarudrappa Konnur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Yellavva W/O Fakeerappa Godi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Basavaraj S/O Pamapap Hanamanahatti Vs the State of Karnataka