Dismissed

Mr Ibrahim v. Vs the Authorized Officer and Cheif Manager

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2023WP/1987/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging an interim order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act was dismissed. The High Court held that the petitioners' failure to deposit the stipulated 20% of the outstanding amount violated the interim order conditions, necessitating dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The interim order of stay was vacated and the writ petition was dismissed due to non-compliance with deposit conditions.

Mr Ibrahim v Vs the Authorized Officer… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1987 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1987 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. IBRAHIM N S/O LATE MOHAMMED UDAYAVARA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS HOUSE NO 1-199 NETTANNA HOUSE BILINELE, NETTANA PUTTUR- 574230.

¶10

MRS. SUMAYYA W/O MR. IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS HOUSE NO 1-48 NETTANAHOUSE BILINELE, NETTANNA PUTTUR- 574230.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHEIF MANAGER BHARAT CO OPERATIVE BANK (MUMBAI) LTD VASUKI TOWERS, NEXT TO VISHWAS COMMERCIAL BUILDING, NEAR TALK OFFICE OPP: DISTRICT OFFICE UDUPI -576101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R SUNIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

WP No. 1987 of 2023

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 28.07.2022 IN CRL.MISC.NO.234/2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAKSHINA KANNADA ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petition calls in question an order passed by the learned Magistrate on 28.07.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.234/2022 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶22

Heard Sri. K. Shashikanth Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.H.R.Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel representing the respondent.

¶23

Owing to the urgency pleaded, this Court on 06.02.2023 had passed the following order:

¶24

“Sri. H.R. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel undertakes to enter appearance for the respondent.

¶25

Registry is directed to print the name of the aforesaid learned counsel, as appearing for the respondent in the trial proceedings.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 1987 of 2023

¶28

What is called in question is an order passing under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the learned Magistrate, according to which, the outstanding amount is Rs.43,89,458.

¶29

There shall be an interim order of stay of further proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.234/2022 dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dakshina Kannada, subject to the petitioners depositing 20% of the amount in due to the Bank within 6 weeks from today, in the following manner:

¶30

(i) 10% of the amount shall be deposited within 3 weeks.

¶31

(ii) The remainder i.e., 10% shall be deposited within 3 weeks, thereafter.

¶32

(iii) Any deviation in paying the aforesaid amount within the time line as stipulated hereinabove, even of the first instance, would entail vacation of the interim order and would also run the risk of dismissal of the petition itself.

¶33

List this matter on 27.02.2023.”

¶34

4. The amount of 20% was directed to be deposited

¶35

within 6 weeks in 2 installments of 10% each. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank would submit that not a rupee is paid pursuant to the interim order as

¶36

¶37

WP No. 1987 of 2023

¶38

aforesaid. He would further contend that the petitioners have already filed Securitisation Application before the

¶39

Debts Recovery Tribunal, in S.A.No.757/2022.

¶40

In the light of the breach of the interim order and the conditions stipulated therein, the writ petition stands

¶41

dismissed .

¶42

Pending applications, if any, are disposed, as a

¶43

consequence.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Mr Ibrahim v. Vs the Authorized Officer and Cheif Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ibrahim v. Vs the Authorized Officer and Cheif Manager

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

Srinivas R Vs the Principal Secretary

G Eranna Vs the Superintendent of Police

Smt. Suman P. S. Vs Authorised Officer

Rukhsar Mustafa Sharif Vs Regional Passport Officer

Shri John Rajkumar J.T. Vs Chief Manager

Sri. Sanjeev Rao Vs Canara Bank