Dismissed

Mrs. Nefeesa Sheikh Ahamed v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2023WP/4043/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought to quash an auction notice issued by a co-operative society. The court dismissed the petition because the petitioner failed to deposit the required amount within the stipulated deadline, rendering the interim stay order vacated.

What did the court decide?

The interim stay on the auction notice is vacated and the writ petition is dismissed; respondents are free to auction the property.

Mrs. Nefeesa Sheikh Ahamed Vs the State of Karnataka — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4043 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 4043 OF 2023 (CS-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. NEFEESA SHEIKH AHAMED W/O MR SHEIK AHAMED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.9052 DOOR NO.4-97C, GUDDE MANE, NEAR BEEDU, NADSAL PADUBIDRI-574 111 UDUPI DISTRICT

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE

¶15

RECOVERY OFFICER OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY KCSR 441 D K DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED MANGALURU-575 003 REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶16

PADUBIDRI SAHAKARI VYVASAIKA SOCIETY NIYAMITHA NO.2563, PADUBIDRI-574 111 UDUPI TALUK REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER REGISTER UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 4043 of 2023

¶19

MR SHEIKH AHAMED S/O MR ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MEMBERSHIP NO.9051 DOOR NO.4-97C, GUDDE MANE NEAR BEEDU, NADSAL PADUBIDRI-574 111 UDUPI TALUK

¶20

MR SHARIEF S/O MR ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS DOOR NO.97C, SAFAMARVA MANZIL SULTHAN ROAD, HEJAMADI-574 103 UDUPI TALUK

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R4 - SERVED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AUCTION NOTICE IN FORM NO-8 AND 9 DATED 07/02/2023 IN DISPUTE NO. 143/2019-20 AND C.E.P. NO.759/2020-21 FOR THE AUCTION TO BE HELD ON 23/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-A AND B) AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this court seeking for the

¶27

following reliefs;

¶28

a. Quash the Auction Notice in Form No.8 and 9 dated 7.2.2023 in Dispute No.143/201-20 and C.E.P.No.759/2020-21, for Auction to be held on 23.3.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2 at Annexure-A and B.

¶29

b. Grant such other relief/s, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to Grant, under the circumstance of the petition, in the interest of Justice.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 4043 of 2023

¶32

The contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner is ready to make payment of the due amounts, if granted sufficient time. Taking into account, the said submission on 21.3.2023 this Court had stayed the auction subject to the petitioner deposited the sum equivalent to 20% of the amount due by 4.4.2023 and another 10% by 18.4.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on enquiry now submits that the said amount was not deposited in terms of the order dated 21.3.2023, if the amount were not deposited on the particular dates indicated, the interim order granted should automatically vacated and as such it stood vacated on the midnight of 4.4.2023. Now it is clear that the petitioner is not intending to make payment of any amount there would be no purpose served in keeping this matter alive, as such I pass the following;

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. The petition stands dismissed.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 4043 of 2023

¶37

ii. Needless to say, that the respondents would be free to auction the property as also to collect the cost incurred as regards the earlier auction from the petitioner.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Mrs. Nefeesa Sheikh Ahamed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Nefeesa Sheikh Ahamed v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr. Zabi Ulla Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shamshad Begum Vs the State of Karnataka

V Kirshna Murthy Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Lakshminarayana Co. Operative Bank Limited Vs the Joint Registrar of Cooperative

Sri Kalikamba Souharda Sahakari Niyamita Vs the Block Education Officer

Mrs Noojahan Vs the State of Karnataka