Dismissed

Sri P Jayaprakash v. Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2023WP/4708/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court disposed of the matter observing that the petitioners failed to comply with a previous interim order directing them to deposit 30% of the demanded amount. Consequently, the Court found no warrant to entertain the petition further and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; no further relief was granted.

Sri P Jayaprakash Vs Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4708 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4708 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. P. JAYAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE H. L. PANDURANGA.

¶8

SMT. PRABHAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O SRI. P. JAYAPRAKASH,

¶9

BOTH RESIDING AT: D.NO.10-194, NEAR MAHAVEERA COLLEGE, PRANTHYA VILLAGE, KODANGALLU POST, MOODABIDRI TQ, MANGALORE - 574 197.

¶10

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. P.S. RANGANATHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

VISHWAKARMA SAHAKARA BANK LTD, REGD. NO.4798, CAR STREET, MANGALORE - 575 001.

¶16

SRI. SHRINIVAS, MAJOR,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 4708 of 2022

¶19

S/O SRI. PIJINA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.10-130C, MC ROAD, KAYARRGUNDI, PRANTHYA VILLAGE, KODANGALLU POST, MOODABIDRI TQ, MANGALORE - 574 197.

¶20

SRI. SHIVAPPA, MAJOR, S/O SRI. CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, D.NO.10-168, NEAR MARIGUDI, PRANTHYA VILLAGE, KODANGALLU POST, MOODUBIDRI TQ, MANGALORE - 574 197.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. A. DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANKS DATED 15.11.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AT BANGALURU AND FOUND AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶27

prayers:

¶28

"a) Call for the records from the file of the urban Cooperative Banks Federation in JRD/UBF/815/20172018 dated 15.11.2017 on the file of the urban

¶29

¶30

WP No. 4708 of 2022

¶31

Banks Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies at Bengaluru and found at Annexure-J.

¶32

b) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or Mandamus to quash the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFEASI proceedings dated 16.12.2021 and found at Annexure-K.

¶33

c) Pass such other/further orders as this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

¶34

This Court on 26.08.2022 had passed the following

¶35

order:

¶36

"Issue emergent notice to the respondents. Respondent No.1 - Bank has entered caveat through its counsel who opposes this petition.

¶37

In the matters like this, day in and day out this Court has been giving some reprieve to the borrowers by stipulating certain conditions, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be discriminated.

¶38

In the above circumstances, the impugned order is stayed subject to petitioners depositing with the bank 30% of the amount in demand as under:

¶39

(i) 10% of the amount within two weeks,

¶40

(ii) another 10% of the amount in the next two weeks,

¶41

(iii) remaining 10% of the amount in two weeks next following,

¶42

failing which not only the interim order stands rescinded on its own but it will cast its shadow on the merits of the main matter too.

¶43

It is also made clear that the respondent -bank can take possession of the property by physically removing the petitioners or any one claiming under them, if they fail to deposit 30% of the amount in demand, as directed."

¶44

¶45

WP No. 4708 of 2022

¶46

Though close to ten months have lapsed, not a rupee has been paid by the petitioner in terms of the interim order. Owing to the submission, two weeks time was granted on 18.11.2022 and even on 31.03.2023, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 had submitted that not even a rupee has been paid. The same is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Therefore, there is no warrant to entertain the petition any further.

¶47

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings, the petition stands disposed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

JY CT:STK

Sri P Jayaprakash v. Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Jayaprakash v. Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Ltd.

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 Kolavenkatarama Naidu Vs Muthoot Fincorp Limited

Sri K Shankarlal Vs the Postmaster Hsg I

Sri. Santhosh. B. a. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sannamari D Vs Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.

Shri Mahadevaswamy N Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Triumph Mechanics Private Limited Vs Ugro Capital