The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the confirmation of an auction sale by the Sale Officer. The court found that dues remained payable by the petitioner, the One Time Settlement scheme was inapplicable, and no court trial on demolition was conducted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33175 OF 2015 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT K PADMAVATHI W/O H.B. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O NO.63, 16TH CROSS, WEST PARK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-55 REP BY GPA HOLDER H.B. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 33175 of 2015
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHESH R. ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M.N., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, DATED 5.6.2015 IN NO. CO/27/CAP/2012 AND CO/51/CAP/2012 UNDER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
following reliefs:
WP No. 33175 of 2015
WP No. 33175 of 2015
issued a public auction sale notice of the security provided by the petitioner fixing the date of auction as 15.10.2006. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner had filed W.P. No.14104/2006. This Court after considering the matter permitted the petitioner
to submit a detailed reply to the statement of account produced by the 4th respondent within 10 days thereafter and the Bank was directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders thereon.
WP No. 33175 of 2015
to the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.1,40,000/- within four weeks. The auction sale notice was never set-aside but the auction was permitted to be continued.
that there are amounts due and liable to be paid by the petitioner, when in fact they are not so due and payable.
WP No. 33175 of 2015
be paid, 4th respondent ought to have called upon the petitioner to make payment of said amount which the petitioner would have made payment of, not having done so the 4th respondent could not have approached the ARCS for confirmation of the auction.
7.3. This Court having refused to confirm the auction in W.P. No.14104/2006, the respondent could not have approached the ARCS for confirmation.
7.4. He further alleges that the 4th respondentSociety has colluded with 5th respondentauction purchaser and has got demolished the building which was standing on the property contrary to the status-quo order passed on 15.10.2009 in W.P. No.22750/2009 and it is in that background that the DRCS directed 4th respondent to make payment of Rs.8,00,000/as cost/damages.
WP No. 33175 of 2015
7.5. The 5th respondent auction purchaser did not have any money, there is collusion between the officers of the 4th respondent and the auction purchaser inasmuch as the sale deed was executed in favour of the said purchaser on 13.02.2008 and immediately on 14.02.2008 the Society had sanctioned loan of Rs.10,00,000/on pledging the very same property.
WP No. 33175 of 2015
allowed on the ground that the petitioner had not made payment of the amounts due and as such, confirmed the auction.
WP No. 33175 of 2015
less interest from 2003, the representation directed to be considered by this Court vide order passed in W.P. No.14104/2006 was considered and rejected.
8.3. The said rejection order not having been challenged, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing an interlocutory application in W.P. No.14104/2006 seeking for confirmation of sale which process had been stayed at that point of time, this Court considering that the main petition had been dismissed the application was also dismissed. 4th respondent had thus approached the ARCS for confirmation which was so confirmed.
8.4. It is submitted that mere depositing of Rs.1,40,000/- does not confer any right on the petitioner for stopping the confirmation of auction. The confirmation could have been stopped if the entire amount was paid, the sum
not having been paid, the property was
WP No. 33175 of 2015
auctioned and the amounts due to the Bank
were appropriated and the balance amount was sent to the petitioner which was not received by the petitioner and as such, the same was invested in a fixed deposit.
8.5. The petitioner did not make payment of the due
amounts but to the contrary claimed that an amount of Rs.51,000/- was due and payable by 4th respondent to the petitioner. The 4th respondent has also produced the proceedings of the auction sale, intimation letters, mahazar, etc. after serving a copy thereof to the petitioner.
8.6. It is on the basis of the above, he submits that the petitioner not having come to Court with clean hands, there being large amounts of monies payable to the cooperative Bank, even according to the petitioner only a sum of Rs.1,40,000/having been deposited, the auction sale was confirmed which cannot be
WP No. 33175 of 2015
found fault with. There is no particular allegation which is made as regards the valuation of the property and therefore, the property having been auctioned, the successful auction purchaser having paid the due amounts, the same is required to be upheld by this Court and the petition dismissed.
WP No. 33175 of 2015
admittedly been filed on 6.08.2015, the auction having taken place on 19.08.2007, the balance amount of Rs.7,75,065/- was forwarded by 4th respondent to the petitioner on 19.02.2008 which came to be returned by the petitioner under his legal notice dated 31.03.2008.
WP No. 33175 of 2015
been addressed, the same are also dealt with, lest it be contended that the merits have not been considered.
WP No. 33175 of 2015
account having been produced, the said statement having been disputed only by claiming that an excess amount of Rs.51,000/is paid cannot be countenanced either in law or facts. The said contention of the petitioner is not supported by any statement of accounts indicating any accumulated interest, the payment made by the petitioner and the balance due. Though this court is not conducting a trial or enquiry into the matter, the submission made by counsel for 4th respondent is more plausible inasmuch as on the date of the auction, there was a sum of Rs.1,92,415/- which was pending and liable to be paid by the petitioner. This dehors the OTS proposal.
WP No. 33175 of 2015
has been unauthorizedly demolished, the petitioner has already approached the DRCS who has passed necessary orders, as such, this Court need not venture into that aspect.
Sd/JUDGE
LN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the auction of the security property was confirmable despite the petitioner's claim of excess payment.
Whether Reserve Bank of India's One Time Settlement scheme is applicable to cooperative societies.
SMT K PADMAVATHI W/O H.B. BOREGOWDA
H.B. BOREGOWDA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
THE SALE OFFICER SRI.KENGAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
THE SECRETARY SHREE KENGAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
