Disposed

Mr. Ravikumar H v. M/S the Bhavasara Kshyatriya Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023WP/12183/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging a sale notice issued by a cooperative bank under the SARFAESI Act. The court accepted the petitioner's proposal to regularize the loan and directed the bank to reconsider restoring possession, subject to the petitioner paying Rs. 9.5 lakhs in three installments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 9.5 lakhs in three installments. Bank directed to reconsider restoration of possession upon receipt of Rs. 19 lakhs deposited earlier.

Mr. Ravikumar H Vs M/S the Bhavasara… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44251 WP No. 12183 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 12183 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. RAVIKUMAR H S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT # 40, 8TH CROSS CHOLARAPALYA MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU - 560023

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. KAVITHA D.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

M/S THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (REGISTERED UNDER THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT) HEAD OFFICE: "SAHAKARA SADANA" NO.63/67, 24TH CROSS, KILLARI ROAD BENGALURU - 560053 IFSC CODE: BKID099BKCB REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SAILESH S KATAREY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SALE NOTICE DTD 30.05.2023 VIDE ANNX-J ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK WHICH IS PUBLISHED IN THE NEW

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:44251 WP No. 12183 of 2023

¶19

INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY NEWS PAPER ON 01.06.2023 AGAINST THE PETITIOENR MORTGAGED SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY STATING THAT THE ENTIRE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE SARFAESI ACT 2002; ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT BANK NOT TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTIONS AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND TO ACCEPT THE PETITIONER PROPOSAL TO RESTRUCTURE HIS LOAN ACCOUNT IN ORDER REGULARIZE HIS LOAN ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY AND ALSO FURNISH HIM WITH THE STATEMENT OF LOAN ACCOUNT TILL DATE.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶23

prayer:

¶24

“ PRAYER

¶25

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, most respectfully prays before this Hon'ble Court that in view of the facts and grounds mentioned above, the Petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

¶26

a) Issue a writ of Certiorari by setting aside the sale Notice dated 30-05-2023 vide ANNEXURE-J issued by the Respondent Bank which is published in The New Indian Express Daily News paper on 01-06-2023 against the Petitioner's mortgaged schedule property by stating that the entire recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank against the Schedule Property are illegal and in violation of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44251 WP No. 12183 of 2023

¶28

b) Issue writ of Mandamus to the Respondent Bank, not to take any further actions against the Schedule Property and to accept the Petitioner's proposal to restructure his loan account in order regularize his loan account immediately and also furnish him with the Statement of Loan Account till date.

¶29

c) Issue such other orders or direction/s as may be deemed fit to grant, including cost of the case, in the view of facts and circumstances of this above case in the interest of justice and equity”

¶30

This Court entertaining the petition has passed a slew

¶31

of orders in protection of the petitioner. On 15.06.2023, the

¶32

following order:

¶33

“ ORDER

¶34

Issue emergent notice.

¶35

Stay of auction subject to Petitioner depositing 1/3rd of the amount in Demand i.e., 19,00,000/(Rupees Nineteen Lakh) only with the Respondent – Cooperative Bank, as under:

¶36

i) A sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh) only within two weeks;

¶37

ii) another sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh) only within next two weeks; and,

¶38

iii) the remainder i.e., a sum of Rs.6,00,000/(Rupees Six Lakh) only within two weeks next following,

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:44251 WP No. 12183 of 2023

¶41

failing which, not only interim order stands rescinded

¶42

but writ petition itself runs the risk of being rejected.”

¶43

On 25.07.2023, the following order:

¶44

“ ORDER ON IA NO.1/2023

¶45

This Court vie order dated 15.06.2021 had said as under:

¶46

“Issue emergent notice.

¶47

Stay of auction subject to Petitioner depositing 1/3rd of the amount in Demand i.e., 19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh) only with the Respondent – Cooperative Bank, as under:

¶48

i) A sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh) only within two weeks;

¶49

ii) another sum of Rs.6,00,000/(Rupees Six Lakh) only within next two weeks; and,

¶50

iii) the remainder i.e., a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh) only within two weeks next following,

¶51

failing which, not only interim order stands rescinded but writ petition itself runs the risk of being rejected.

¶52

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits

¶53

that her client has already made the payment of all the three installments specified in eh said order and therefore, the possession of the subject property be restored to him. The Respondent – Bank remains unrepresented despite service of notice. Ordinarily when the borrower shows bona fide by paying

¶54

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44251 WP No. 12183 of 2023

¶55

reasonable amount, the possession of the property is restored. Therefore in this case, the court cannot take another path.

¶56

The Respondent – Bank is directed to restore the possession of the property to the Petitioner immediately failing which, the matter will be viewed very seriously.

¶57

Ordered accordingly and IA No.1/2023 is disposed off.

¶58

Call this matter after four weeks. In the meanwhile, Petitioner to come out with a plan for repayment of the entire outstanding loan/amount.”

¶59

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been complied with and an amount of Rs.19 lakhs has been deposited with the Bank.

¶60

The learned counsel appearing for the Bank would admit such deposit and submit that if Rs.9.5 lakhs is paid by the petitioner, the account itself would become regular.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶62

if three installments are granted, he would make good the entire amount of Rs.9.5 lakhs, but seeks restoration of possession of the property, as the petitioner has been dispossessed pursuant to the proceedings.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:44251 WP No. 12183 of 2023

¶65

In the light of the submissions made by the

¶66

petitioner and the respondent and the consent of the parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition.

¶67

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i) The writ petition is disposed. ii) The petitioner shall pay Rs.9.5 lakhs in three installments of Rs.3,20,000/- each that is first deposit shall be made within three weeks from today, another deposit within two weeks, thereafter and remainder of amount within two weeks, thereafter.

¶70

iii) Bank shall reconsider restoration of possession of the property to the hands of the petitioner, in the light of the receipt of Rs.19 lakhs pursuant to the orders passed by this Court.

¶71

iv) In the event of breach of the aforesaid condition, the Bank is at liberty to take possession of the property and deal with the matter, in accordance with law.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

Mr. Ravikumar H v. M/S the Bhavasara Kshyatriya Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ravikumar H v. M/S the Bhavasara Kshyatriya Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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

Chandra Shekar S Vs N Srinivasa

M/S Master Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Jai Hanuman Traders Vs M/S Canara Bank

Smt Kalavathi Vs Karnataka Gramin Bank

Smt. Almas Unnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

South Western Railway Catering Contractors Association Vs the Union of India