Disposed

Sri. Maresh. v. Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2023WP/22571/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed writ petition challenging bank's coercive recovery proceedings. Court ordered bank to consider regularizing NPA account if petitioners pay dues within six weeks; otherwise proceedings revive.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent bank to consider lenient regularization of petitioners' NPA account if dues paid within six weeks; otherwise coercive proceedings shall revive.

Sri. Maresh. v Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42837 WP No. 22571 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 22571 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MARESH. V S/O VENAKTESH T, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.1370, IST MAIN ROAD, NEAR P.V. BAKERY, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560057.

¶8

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI M, W/O V. MARESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.1370, IST MAIN ROAD, NEAR P.V. BAKERY, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560057.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. DAYALU K N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ADMN. OFFICE: B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR-572103, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD BRANCH, # 40, IST FLOOR, WARD NO.15, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560057,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:42837 WP No. 22571 of 2022

¶17

REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. LOKESH K.V., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD 21.06.2022 VIDE ANNX-H; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT/BANK TO REGULARISE THE LOAN ACCOUNT BEARING LOAN ACCOUNT NO.30303608138 OF THE PETITIONERS ACCORDING OPPORTUNITY TO REPAY THE DEFAULTED ACCRUED LOAN AMOUNT AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The challenge is to the coercive recovery proceedings of loan as provided under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of interim order dated 16.11.2022 granted by a Coordinate Bench of this court, the amount has been deposited, the last extension having been granted by another order dated 31.10.2023.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

¶25

argues that the proceedings undertaken under the subject Act are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex court in

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42837 WP No. 22571 of 2022

¶27

a catena of decisions; already the petitioners having deposited certain sums of money in terms of interim

¶28

orders granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners who have shown bonafide should be relieved from the coercive legal proceedings. This is vehemently opposed by the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the bank by placing reliance on the Apex Court decision in UNITED BANK OF INDIA vs. SATYAWATI TONDON, (2010) 8 SCC 110.

¶29

Learned Panel counsel appearing for the bank having contended as above in all fairness now agrees that

¶30

the bank would leniently consider the request of petitioners for the regularization of subject bank account which has been now in NPA status provided that the petitioners make payment of all amount due for making the same regularize in terms of RBI Guidelines. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if a period of six months is granted, his clients would be able to do it.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42837 WP No. 22571 of 2022

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶33

and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to agree with the above suggestion of the Panel Counsel for the bank. Ordinarily, in matters like this, same pattern is followed and there is no reason for not following it in this case.

¶34

In view of the above, the petition is disposed off directing the respondent-bank to consider leniently the request of petitioners for the regularization of subject NPA Account if petitioners come forward to make the requisite payment therefor within a period of six weeks, failing which the impugned coercive proceedings would revive and bank can take all steps for the recovery, in accordance with law.

¶35

Costs made easy.

¶36

CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

Sri. Maresh. v. Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Maresh. v. Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Munigangappa. M. Vs the Bharat Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Mr Shivanna a P Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants

Sri. Sunil Kumar J Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sudheer K Vs Tumkur Veerashaiava

Sri. M.V. Guruprasad Vs State of Karnataka

Anitha Rao N Vs the Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank Ltd.