Dismissed

M/S.Santosh Traders v. the Genral Manager

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023WP/3485/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a possession notice under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. An interim stay had been granted contingent upon depositing Rs. 40 lakhs. The court set aside the stay and dismissed the petition due to the petitioners' total failure to deposit the mandated amount within the stipulated four-week period.

What did the court decide?

The interim stay on the possession notice was vacated and the writ petition was dismissed for non-compliance with the deposit order.

M/S.Santosh Traders Vs the Genral Manager — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3485 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 3485 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. SANTOSH TRADERS NO.115/1, 4^TH MAIN ROAD APMC YARD, YESHWANTHAPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER: SRI S.RAJESH.

¶9

SRI S.RAJESH S/O SUKHARAJ H., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶10

SRI SUKHARAJ H., S/O HASTIMAL AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

¶11

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

¶12

SMT. NIRMALA S. RAJESH W/O SRI RAJESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PETITIONERS NOS.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT:

¶13

NO.4/2, G.B.LANE COTTONPET CROSS BENGALURU – 560 053.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

WP No. 3485 of 2023

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE GENERAL MANAGER CITY UNION BANK CREDIT RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NARAYANA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE NO.24-B, GANDHI NAGAR KUMBAKONAM – 612 0001

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY C., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 29/12/2022, PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO. 6034 OF 2022, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IX ACMM, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners are before this Court seeking certain omnibus prayers. The prayer in effect is challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 3485 of 2023

¶28

This Court, by an order dated 14.02.2023 had directed

¶29

the petitioners to serve upon the respondent/Bank and on 16.02.2023 had passed the following order:

¶30

“Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶31

Registry is directed to print the name of Sri. Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel in place of Sri. Prakash Hegde, learned counsel as appearing for the respondent.

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the possession notice dated 10.02.2023.

¶33

There shall be an interim order of stay of the possession notice dated 10.02.2023, subject to the petitioners depositing Rs.40,00,000/- of the amount in due to the Bank within 4 weeks from today, in the following manner:

¶34

(i) Rs.20,00,000/- shall be deposited within 2 weeks.

¶35

(ii) The remainder i.e., Rs.20,00,000/- shall be deposited within 2 weeks, thereafter.

¶36

(iii) Any deviation in paying the aforesaid amount within the time line as stipulated hereinabove, even at the first instance, would entail vacation of the interim order and would also run the risk of dismissal of the petition itself.

¶37

List this matter on 14.03.2023.”

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank would submit

¶39

that not even a rupee is paid pursuant to the order dated 16.02.2023, notwithstanding the fact that four weeks have passed by and Rs.40 lakhs had to be deposited.

¶40

¶41

WP No. 3485 of 2023

¶42

In the light of the aforesaid default, the petition stands

¶43

dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail of such remedy as is available in law.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

M/S.Santosh Traders v. the Genral Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Santosh Traders v. the Genral Manager

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

Sri B S Vishwanath Vs the Public Information Officer

Shri. Mahadevaswamy. N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Amrith P Shenoy Vs Authorised Officer

Smt. Bi Bi Ayesha Siddiqha Vs the Government of Karnataka

M/S Hill Land Properties and Developers Vs M/S Casa Grande Garden City Builders Private Limited

Venkatesh Vs K C Mohan Kumar