Allowed

Canara Bank v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023WP/1144/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns a writ petition filed by Canara Bank seeking direction to execute an order to take physical possession of mortgaged property. The Bench directed the officials to assist the Court Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to assist the Sheristedar of the Court below in taking possession of the subject property immediately after the petitioner makes a written request in that regard.

Canara Bank Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1144 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1144 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

CANARA BANK, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRNACH -I, 2ND FLOOR, CIRCLE OFFICE, NO.86, SPENCER TOWER, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS, CHIEF MANAGER, MR. PAWAN CHATURVEDI.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN, K.G ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶12

OFFICE OF THE THASILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, VINAYAKA NAGAR, ANEKAL, KARNATAKA - 562 106.

¶13

MR. J. ASHWINI KUMAR, S/O JANAKIRAN NAIDU, #445/A, 2ND FLOOR,

¶14

¶15

WP No. 1144 of 2023

¶16

1ST CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 0034.

¶17

MR. K. MADHUKIRAN, S/O JANAKIRAN NAIDU, #1381, 18TH MAIN, JP NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶18

MR. K.N. SHANKAR, S/O K. NARAYANAN, #1381, 18TH MAIN, J P NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶19

MRS. PADMAVATHI.K, W/O K.N. SHANKAR, #1381, 18TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶20

MR. SHANTHAKUMAR, S/O, N. NARAYANA REDDY, NO.2/1, OLD CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 145.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M., AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO R1 AND R2 TO EXECUTE THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2018 PASSED BY THE R1 IN C.R.NO.75/2017.18 TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTYANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

¶25

WP No. 1144 of 2023

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri. Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vinod Kumar M., learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the

¶30

following prayers:

¶31

"a. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction to Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to execute the order dated 26.02.2018 / 05.03.2018 passed by Respondent No.1 in C.R.No.75/2017-18 to take physical possession of the mortgaged property - Annexure-A;

¶32

b. Further be pleased to grant any other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances and facts of the case including the cost of this proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

c. Award costs of this Writ Petition."

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶35

would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the

¶36

judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/S

¶37

TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,

¶38

¶39

WP No. 1144 of 2023

¶40

-VS- THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.¹ , the

¶41

Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:

¶42

"The short grievance of the petitioner is as to alleged non-cooperation of the jurisdictional police in implementing the order dated 05.03.2020, operative portion of which reads as under:

¶43

“ORDER

¶44

Petition is allowed with following terms.

¶45

1. Applicant/petitioner is entitled to take possession of the schedule property towards satisfaction of the creditors due.

¶46

2. Sri. KVL, Advocate and Authorized officer submit that Sheristedar of this court may be appointed as a Commissioner, in view of the above, Sheristedar of this court is hereby appointed as a Commissioner to deliver the possession of the secured property to the petitioner.

¶47

3. Police Inspector of Jurisdictional Police Station is hereby directed to give necessary assistance to the applicant/petitioner while taking possession of the schedule property.

¶48

4. Applicant/petitioner shall bear the legal expenses if any of the said police.

¶49

5. The petitioner is at liberty to break open the lock after following due procedure of law in the presence of the respectable persons.”

¶50

2. Learned AGA on request having accepted

¶51

notice for the first respondent and notice to the rest is dispensed with as being unnecessary, submits that he would instruct his client to look into the grievance of the

¶52

1 W.P.No.19849 disposed on 09.12.2021

¶53

¶54

WP No. 1144 of 2023

¶55

petitioner swiftly and in accordance with law. He also submits that since the property in which the security interest is created, is occupied by multiple persons, extra police force needs be deployed, and therefore the petitioner has to inform the police in advance; this is fair enough."

¶56

In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench and the facts being undisputed, I pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. Writ Petition stands disposed directing the first respondent to assist the Shirastedar of the Court below in taking possession of the subject property immediately after petitioner makes the written request in that regard.

¶59

ii. Non-compliance of this direction may result into multiple adverse entries being made in the Service Register of the police officials concerned.

¶60

Costs made easy.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Canara Bank v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B B Hareesha Vs the Hanumanthanagar Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Smt. Nethra P Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. Laxmi Nagari Vs the Government of Karnataka

The Hotel Industrialists Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Bharath Vs City Union Bank Ltd.

Sri Ali Hussain @ Gas Ali Vs State of Karnataka