Dismissed

Mr Raghavan Srinivasan v. M/S Deutsche Bank Ag

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023WP/4104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected the writ petition seeking to quash the auction notice of mortgaged properties summarily dismissed the challenge as the petitioner failed to comply with the final interim direction to pay Rs. 1 crore.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected. The respondent bank was directed to permit the petitioner to collect his movables from the safe place.

Mr Raghavan Srinivasan Vs M/S Deutsche Bank Ag — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:44616 WP No. 4104 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4104 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. RAGHAVAN SRINIVASAN, S/O S. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 137, 2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI DOLLARS LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. C. SHASHI KIRANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

M/S DEUTSCHE BANK AG, RAHEJA TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR, NO. 26-27, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, (THE RESPONDENT BANK REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF FINANCIAL SERVICE ACT, 1986)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. MANOJ K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHABALESHWAR CHITRIGEMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DATED 16/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:44616 WP No. 4104 of 2023

¶19

BANK TO PETITIONER COMMUNICATING THE AUCTION OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY SCHEDULED ON 24/02/2023 AT 12.00 P.M. VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶23

"(i) issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash the sale notice dated 16/01/2023 issued by the respondent bank to petitioner communicating the auction of Schedule property scheduled on 24/02/2023 at 12.00 pm vide ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

(ii) issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash the order dated 08/0/2020 in Crl.Misc.No.4672/2019 passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, vide ANNEXURE-B.

¶25

(iii) Grant such other further relief as may deem fit in the circumstances of the case;"

¶26

This Court on 22.02.2023 had passed the following

¶27

order:

¶28

"The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a sale notice dated 16.01.2023, issued by the respondent seeking to sell the property on 24.02.2023.

¶29

According to the learned counsel for petitioner the outstanding amount is Rs.8 crores and according to the respondent/Bank it is Rs.14 crores, which involves two properties in mortgage with the Bank.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:44616 WP No. 4104 of 2023

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent would submit that the auction is slated to be held on 24.02.2023 and it is difficult to get the buyer every time when the borrower does not make the payment.

¶33

Therefore, the auction proceedings shall go on and confirmation of sale shall not be issued in favour of the auction purchaser, subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit Rs.1 crore within six weeks, in the following manner:

¶34

1. The petitioner shall deposit Rs.50 lakhs within three weeks from today.

¶35

2. Remainder of Rs.50 lakhs shall be deposited within three weeks thereafter.

¶36

3. 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

The order was clear that any deviation in paying the aforesaid amount, the writ petition itself would be dismissed. No amount is paid. The interim order was continued on an I.A. on 03.07.2023. Again on 03.11.2023, as a last opportunity, time was granted to pay Rs.1/-crore in two installments. The matter was listed on 16.11.2023, again on the assurance of the petitioner that he would make payment, the interim order was extended. The same on 29.11.2023. On 04.12.2023, this Court passed the following order:

¶38

"This Court on 22.02.2023 had passed the following order:

¶39

"The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a sale notice dated 16.01.2023, issued by

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:44616 WP No. 4104 of 2023

¶42

the respondent seeking to sell the property on 24.02.2023.

¶43

¶44

Learned counsel for respondent would submit that the auction is slated to be held on 24.02.2023 and it is difficult to get the buyer every time when the borrower does not make the payment.

¶45

Therefore, the auction proceedings shall go on and confirmation of sale shall not be issued in favour of the auction purchaser, subject to the condition that the petitoner would deposit Rs.1 crore within six weeks, in the following manner:

¶46

1. The petitioner shall deposit Rs.50 lakhs

¶47

within three weeks from today.

¶48

2. Remainder of Rs.50 lakhs shall be deposited within three weeks thereafter.

¶49

¶50

Though interim order was not complied, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.11.2023 had passed the following order, etending the interim order, as a last chance.

¶51

"Petitioner has questioned the sale notice dated 16.01.2023 issued by the respondent. By the interim order dated 22.02.2023, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 crore in two installments and the respondent was directed not to confirm the sale in favour of auction purchaser. In view of the non compliance of the interim order dated 22.02.2023, the sale has been confirmed.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:44616 WP No. 4104 of 2023

¶54

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed the application seeking extension of time to comply with the interim order dated 22.02.2023.

¶55

Learned Counsel for the respondent objects to the extension of time.

¶56

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the property being seized, the petitioner is unable to sell any other properties to comply with the interim order as the property document are remained in the said property.

¶57

In the circumstances petitioner is permitted to collect the documents on 06.11.2023 and the respondent is directed to facilitate to collect the documents by the petitioner.

¶58

Petitioner has not shown his bonafide after the interim order dated 22.02.2023. As a last opportunity, the petitioner is directed to comply with the interim order.

¶59

In the event of non compliance, respondent is granted liberty to seek orders of this Court to move movables from the schedule premises. To report compliance of the interim order dated 22.02.2023, re-list this matter on 15.11.2023."

¶60

In the event of its non compliance, the respondent was granted liberty to seek orders of this Court to move the movables from the schedule premises. The interim order even today is not complied. Therefore, list on 08.12.2023 in the fresh matters list, as a last chance.

¶61

In the event the interim order would not be complied, the Bank shall shift the movable in the schedule premises to a safe place and intimate same to the petitioner.

¶62

No further adjournment or extension of time would be entertained in the case at hand for the petitioner."

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:44616 WP No. 4104 of 2023

¶65

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent

¶66

submits that in terms of the earlier order of this Court, the movables have been shifted to a safe place and the petitioner is at liberty to collect those movables from the hands of the Bank.

¶67

The petition does not deserve any further entertainment at the hands of this Court. The writ petition deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected with liberty to the petitioner to avail of such remedy, as is available in law.

¶68

The Bank without any hindrance shall permit the petitioner to take his movables from the safe place.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17 CT: BHK

Mr Raghavan Srinivasan v. M/S Deutsche Bank Ag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Raghavan Srinivasan v. M/S Deutsche Bank Ag

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

Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ram Nihin Baalay Vs Megha Bordoloi

Nikkitha K J Vs the Union of India

State Bank of India Vs M/S. Sai Ganapath Hotel Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Fayaz Baig Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Momina Rahath Vs the State of Karnataka