Dismissed

Union Bank of India v. Smt Nagaratnamma

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2023WP/19994/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petition seeking to quash a temporary injunction order in a property suit, holding that the petitioner has adequate remedies by way of applications in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of. The trial court is directed to hear the applications for vacation of the interim order on the specified date.

Union Bank of India Vs Smt Nagaratnamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46925 WP No. 19994 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 19994 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

UNION BANK OF INDIA ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, NO.2/3, RAJA BUILDING, N R ROAD, BENGALURU-560002, e-mail:[email protected] REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, MR.GOPAL T.M.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR.P.L., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT NAGARATNAMMA W/O LATE BALAKRISHNA REDDY, AGE 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.1727, SAHAKRANAGAR LAYOUT, C BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560092.

¶13

MR. SHARATH KUMAR S/O SOMASHEKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, DOLLAR SCHEME, 1^ST CIRCULAR ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560011.

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46925 WP No. 19994 of 2023

¶15

MR. V RAMESH S/O VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.461, BHARATH NIVAS, 2^ND "D" MAIN, MES ROAD, MUTHYALANAGAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560054.

¶16

MR. V RAGHU S/O LATE V RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.916, 4^TH MAIN, 1^ST "A" CROSS, MUTHYALANAGAR, BENGALURU-560054.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE QUASH THE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION DATED 03/05/2023 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU IN O.S. NO. 2948/2023 ON IA NO. 2 AND IA NO. 3 THERE BY RESTRAINING THE PETITIONER FROM INTERFERING WITH THE POSSESSION OF THE R1 OF THE SUIT SCHEDULED PROPERTY AND FURTHER RESTRAINING THE PETITIONER FORM CONDUCTING AUCTION SALE OF THE SCHEDULED PROPERTIES AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46925 WP No. 19994 of 2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner-defendant No.9 in O.S.No.2948/2023 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru is before this Court questioning the order dated 03.05.2023, granting exparte injunction by considering I.A.Nos.2 and 3 restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession of respondent No.1-plaintiff over the suit schedule property and further restraining the petitioner from conducting auction sale of the suit schedule property.

¶23

Heard Sri. P.L.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for

¶24

the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶26

that the suit of the respondent No.1-plaintiff is to declare that the documents executed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 in favour of defendant No.9 are not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent Nos.2 to 4 obtained loan by mortgaging

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46925 WP No. 19994 of 2023

¶28

the suit schedule property. It is also submitted that the petitioner-Bank has initiated recovery proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) and also issued possession notice under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel further submits that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and there is specific bar to entertain the suit under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is before this Court by filing this writ petition, praying to set aside the order granting exparte injunction.

¶29

This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not sitting as an Appellate Court. This Court would exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it would entertain the writ petition only when the parties have no alternate

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46925 WP No. 19994 of 2023

¶31

remedy or the impugned order if allowed to stand would result in miscarriage of justice.

¶32

In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner-defendant No.9 on appearance has already filed written statement and also applications for vacating of interim order i.e., I.A.Nos.4 and 5. It is also submitted that the petitionerdefendant No.9 has already completed his arguments on vacating application and the suit is set down for plaintiff’s arguments on said application on 03.01.2024. When the petitioner-defendant No.9 has already approached Civil Court by filing written statement and also application for vacating interim order and when the petitioner has remedy of filing application for vacating interim order before the Court below, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to entertain the writ petition at this stage.

¶33

In the above circumstances, it is expected that the trial Court shall hear the applications for vacating

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:46925 WP No. 19994 of 2023

¶35

¶36

interim order on the date of hearing i.e., on 03.01.2024 and pass orders on the applications soon after hearing.

¶37

With the above, writ petition stands disposed off.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Union Bank of India v. Smt Nagaratnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Smt Nagaratnamma

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

Late Sri.v.Y. Ghorpade Vs M/S. Sandur Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Janakamma Vs Sri.L.Babu Reddy

Sri G Srinivasaiah Vs Sri C Purushotham

Mahadevamma Vs N K Shashidhar

Sri Lawrence D Souza Vs Sri Jane Gowda

Shiva Prakash Girish Vs Sri a Ligoury D Mello