The petition was filed under Article 226 to quash an eviction notice. Due to disputed facts regarding document impersonation, the court granted an interim order extending a stay on sale confirmation for 15 days.
Interim order extending the stay on sale confirmation until 18.03.2023.
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.
WP No. 620 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 620 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MUNIRAJU V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 620 of 2023
MRS. SHWETHA SHARMA AND MR. DEEPAK THOUNAOJAM.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE
WP No. 620 of 2023
IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 06.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-1 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-L. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 06.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-1 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-L ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior counsel for Sri. Muniraju V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Divya Prandar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
"Heard Sri Vivek S. Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Divya Purandar, learned counsel appearing for the caveator – respondent No.1.
The impending urgency for moving the matter is the sale of the property in which the petitioner is residing, that is slated to be held tomorrow (11.01.2023).
Learned senior counsel would submit that there are maze of facts which would lead the petitioner herself being cheated by certain impostors.
WP No. 620 of 2023
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would seek time to file statement of objections.
Therefore, the sale that is slated to be held on 11.01.2023 shall go on but the respondent – Bank shall not confirm the sale or issue the sale certificate to the auction purchaser.
The auction purchaser shall made known about the pendency of the subject petition."
WP No. 620 of 2023
of 17.03.2023. On the morning of 18.03.2023, it would automatically lapse.
further, in terms of the sale and take the sale to its logical conclusion. The extension of the interim order, in the case at hand shall not influence any judicial or quasi judicial fora, in granting an interim order, if any proceeds would be initiated. They shall independently apply their mind and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
JY
CT:PHH
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quo warranto under Article 226 can be maintained regarding the eviction notice and pending sale of the property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Vidya Jayaram
The Union Bank of India
M/s. Curie Imaging and Diagnostics
Mrs. Shwetha Sharma
Mr. Deepak Thounaojam
Smt. Shobha Sachindra
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
