Dismissed

Lokesh S N v. the PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2023WP/26267/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Writ Bench dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an order permitting bank possession after the petitioner failed to deposit the secured loan amount as per a prior interim stay in a related writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected, allowing the impugned order permitting the Finance Company to take possession to stand unaffected by the applicant's failure to deposit loan dues.

Lokesh S N Vs the PNB Housing Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42686 WP No. 26267 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 26267 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LOKESH S.N., AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O S.N.NANJUNDAPPA, NO.24, 2^ND STAGE, 15^TH CROSS, HEALTH LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 091.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

THE PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL COLLECTION, CHIEF MANAGER AS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MR. PRADEEP S, HAVING ITS REGD. HEAD OFFICE AT 9^TH FLOOR, ANRIKSH BHAWAN, 22 KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶13

HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT MARATHAHALLI BRANCH, NO.56, SAI ARCADE, 3^RD FLOOR, MARATHAHALLI RING ROAD, DEVARABISANAHALLI,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:42686 WP No. 26267 of 2023

¶16

BENGALURU .

¶17

REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1979.

¶18

SIDDESHWASWAMY G.S., S/O SIDDARAMAIAH, NO.227, 6^TH PHASE, 1^ST MAIN, WOC ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 010.

¶19

M/S. POOJA ENTERPRISES, PROP, SIDDESHAWASWAMY G.S., S/O SIDDARAMAIAH, NO.227, 6^TH PHASE, 1^ST MAIN, WOC ROAD,

¶20

RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 010. REGISTERED UNDER THE FIRM ACT 1932.

¶21

SIDDESHWASWAMY G.S., S/O SIDDARAMAIAH,

¶22

SMT. RANJITHA K.S., W/O SIDDESHWASWAMY G.S., R4 AND R5 ARE R/AT NO.137, DWARAKANAGARA,

¶23

1^ST STAGE, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, CHANNASANDRA, R.R. NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 061.

¶24

M/S. POOJA ENTERPRISES, REGISTERED UNDER FIRM ACT 1932.

¶25

SIDDESHWASWAMY G.S., S/O SIDDARAMAIAH,

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42686 WP No. 26267 of 2023

¶27

SMT. RANJITHA K.S., W/O SIDDESHWASWAMY G.S., R6 & R8 AT NO.24, KHATA NO.509, OLD CMP PUTTANAGERE WARD NO.129, JNANABHARATHI ORCHIDS, THE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, RAJARAJESHWARI SUB RANGE, BANGALORE – 560 098.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI.FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR R1)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 14/02/2023 IN CRL.MISC. NO.6746/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IX ACMM, BANGALORE UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE SECURITIZATION ACT 2002. (ANNEXUREA) AND ETC.,

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petitioner is before Court calling in question an order dated 14-02-2023 passed by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6746 of 2022, under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘the Act’ for short) and consequently, seeks restoration of possession of his property.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:42686 WP No. 26267 of 2023

¶36

Heard Sri Harish Kumar M.C., learned counsel

¶37

appearing for the petitioner and Sri Francis Xavier, learned counsel appearing for caveator - respondent No.1.

¶38

Facts, in brief, are as follows:-

¶39

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the schedule

¶40

property having been purchased from its previous owner Smt. M.N. Shashikala, who sold the same in favour of the petitioner pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 29-11-2003. The petitioner availed a housing loan from the hands of the 1^st respondent/the PNB Housing Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Finance Company’ for short) in a sum of `50/- lakhs on 03.10.2018. The loan having become sticky, the Finance Company seeks to initiate proceedings under the Act. The petitioner then immediately knocks at the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.9043 of 2023. This Court on 21-04-2023 passes the following order:

¶41

“ORDER

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶43

Issue emergent notice to the respondents.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:42686 WP No. 26267 of 2023

¶46

The petitioner is called in question an order dated 14-02-2023 passed by the IX ACMM, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.6746 of 2022.

¶47

There shall be an interim order of stay of the order dated 14-02-2023, subject to the petitioner depositing ` 50/lakhs, within twelve weeks, the following manner:

¶48

1. The petitioner shall deposit ` 25/- lakhs within six weeks from to-day.

¶49

2. Reminder of ` 25/- lakhs shall be paid within six weeks, thereafter.

¶50

3. Any deviation in paying the aforesaid amount within the time limit 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.

¶51

4. In the event the petitioners would not comply with the interim order, the Bank is at liberty to take possession of the property and take the proceedings to its logical conclusion.”

¶52

The petitioner does not comply with the order dated 21-04-2023 passed in W.P.No.9043/2023, as not a rupee is paid to the Finance Company. The interim order was clear that in the event the petitioner would not comply with the order, the Finance Company would be at liberty to take possession of the property and take the proceedings to its logical conclusion. By then, the Finance Company had in its hands the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:42686 WP No. 26267 of 2023

¶55

The petitioner had approached this Court calling in question that very order of the learned Magistrate. On account of default of the petitioner, the Finance Company took possession of the property and has locked the premises. The petitioner has not made even a rupee of payment to the Finance Company. The 2^nd writ petition – the subject writ petition is preferred contending that due to financial difficulty, the payment could not be made and now the marriage of the son of the petitioner is fixed and is in a crucial situation. Therefore, the petitioner seeks indulgence at the hands of this Court.

¶56

The respondent / Finance Company has entered

¶57

caveat. The learned counsel Sri Francis Xavier, appearing for the Finance Company submits that the petitioner has not even paid a rupee pursuant to the order passed in the earlier petition and would also seek to contend that the petitioner is in the habit of borrowing money from any other financier and not make good that payment. Be that submission as it is, this Court has shown indulgence to the petitioner by entertaining Writ Petition No.9043 of 2023 and had also granted an interim

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:42686 WP No. 26267 of 2023

¶60

order. Not a rupee comes forward from the hands of the petitioner to the coffers of the Finance Company into the loan account, which has now become sticky to the tune of `2.13 crores. Therefore, indulgence to the petitioner for the second time, all over again, challenging the very same order of the learned Magistrate permitting the Finance Company to take possession of the property is not called for.

¶61

Finding no merit in the petition, the petition deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected, which shall not however, come in the way of the petitioner availing such remedy as is available in law.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88

Lokesh S N v. the PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh S N v. the PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

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

Smt. Laxmi R. Hebbalkar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Arjitha Shelke D G Vs Sri Bhonsley P C R

Sri. N. Nagaraj Vs Estate Officer

M/S. Tilt Room - 2 Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivasan Muthusamy Vs the Union of India

Sri Krishne Gowda I D Vs the Manager