Disposed

Mr. S. Nagesha Babu v. M/S. Bank of Baroda

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023WP/666/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a tenant on an expired lease against a bank and borrower. Due to the lack of a clear timeline for vacating the premises in the petitioner's affidavit, the court terminated these proceedings, allowing the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings terminated; petitioner permitted to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(4A) of SARFAESI Act; interim order continued for 3 weeks.

Mr. S. Nagesha Babu Vs M/S. Bank of Baroda — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 666 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 666 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. S. NAGESHA BABU S/O B SATISH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO 51, GROUND FLOOR 2ND CROSS, 5TH MAIN NANDAKUMAR LAYOUT SPOORTHI NAGAR, AREHALLI BENGALURU - 560061

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH R.L., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by 1. M/S. BANK OF BARODA PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH ZONAL OFFICE, VIJAYA TOWERS COURT OF 2ND FLOOR, NO.41/2 KARNATAKA TRINITY CIRCLE, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560070 [BANK MANAGER]

¶13

MR. D. S. MOHAN S/O LATE D. SUBRAMANYA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO 70, BALAJINAGAR SUBRAMNAYAPURA POST UTTARAHALLI

¶14

¶15

WP No. 666 of 2023

¶16

BENGALURU - 560061

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE VACATING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R1 BANK DTD 07.11.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AS PER THE ORDER CRL.MISC.NO.3781/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri.Rangaswamaiah R.L., learned counsel for Sri. R.P. Somashekharaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶23

The petition is filed claiming to be a tenant in the premises owned by respondent No.2, the borrower. The lease agreement that is produced in support of the contention that they are the tenants even as on date is dated 09.04.2018, which was for a period of one year, which is long over.

¶24

This Court had directed them to file an affidavit with

¶25

regard to the timeline in which that they would vacate the

¶26

¶27

WP No. 666 of 2023

¶28

premises. The affidavit is vague without any indication as to when they would vacate the premises. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to terminate these proceedings and permit the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 ('Act' for short). Since the interim order is granted and is subsisting as on date, I deem it appropriate to continue the same for a period of 3 weeks from today to enable the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(4A) of the Act.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

SJK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Mr. S. Nagesha Babu v. M/S. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. S. Nagesha Babu v. M/S. Bank of Baroda

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

Dayananda Vs State Bank of India

Girish Vs the State of Karnataka

Govinda Raju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Dream Land Promoters and Developers Vs the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

Sri. B S Nagaraj Vs the State Ofkarnataka

Sri.B.S Lokesh Vs the Union of India