The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a bank customer seeking directions to reconsider a loan matter and restrain recovery. The court held that the petition was infructuous as the loan had been regularized and renewal proceedings taken.
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 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 3464 OF 2020 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVARAJA AKKONI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SIDDHARTHA BABURAO, AGA FOR R2, R3 SRI PRITHVIRAJ SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G BALAKRISHNA SHASHTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.01.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
NC: 2023:KHC:39306 WP No. 3464 of 2020
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following
reliefs:
“ a) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus and pass necessary directions to Respondents to consider the Representation dated 09.01.2020 submitted by the Petitioner under Annexure-B.
b) Set aside the Sale Notice No.EP No.126/2019-20 ARB No.05/2018-19 dated 10.1.2020 issued by Respondent No.2 under Annexure-C;
c) Issue directions to the Respondent No.1 to rework the entire loan amount of the Petitioner after appropriating the remittance and “Insurance/Subsidy” amount received against the loan of Petitioner and communicate the Petitioner accordingly;
d) Pending consideration of the Representation dated 9.1.2020, restrain the Respondents in proceeding with any kind of recovery action against the schedule property in the given circumstances of the case under Annexure-B in the ends of justice.”
NC: 2023:KHC:39306 WP No. 3464 of 2020
3. In view of the aforementioned, the above writ
petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed or dismissed given the status of the underlying loan recovery proceedings.
Whether directions should be issued to reconsider a representation or restrain recovery actions.
Mr P Aboobakar
M/S Vitla Grammeena Sahakari Bank Limited
The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society Mangaluru Sub-Division
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society Mangaluru Sub-Division
C.M. Poonacha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
