Dismissed

Mrs Shahnaz Begum v. the Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2023WP/8988/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an e-auction sale notice issued by a bank under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the notice and direct fixation of the reserve price per the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Court held the petition infructuous as the auction was not held, reserving liberty on the reserve price issue.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous in the absence of the auction; associated interim applications were rejected. Liberty reserved to raise the issue of reserve price fixation in future.

Mrs Shahnaz Begum Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34317 WP No. 8988 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 8988 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. SHAHNAZ BEGUM W/O. LATE SYED MOINUDDIN QUADRI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶9

MOHAMMED NADEEM SATTAR S/O. MOHAMMED SATTAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH R/A NO.272/3 D, VIJAYNAGAR 2^ND STAGE, MYSORE-570 019.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MEGHACHANDRA D.N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER BANK OF BARODA (PREVIOUSLY VIJAYA BANK) REGIONAL OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, BELLADA TOWERS, VIKAS NAGAR, HUBLI-580 021.

¶16

THE BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF BARODA (PREVIOUSLY VIJAYA BANK), KOPPAL BRANCH, SHAMA COMPLEX, GUNJ CIRCLE, B.T. PATIL NAGAR, NH-63, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOPPAL-583 231.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SUKUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:34317 WP No. 8988 of 2020

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 10.07.2020 ISSUED / PUBLISHED BY RESPONDENT BANK AS NULL AND VOID, NOTIFYING TO SELL THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners have challenged the e-auction sale notice dated 10.07.2020 published by the respondent - Bank to sell the petition schedule property, henceforth referred to as ‘the secured asset’. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to fix the reserve price of the petition schedule property in accordance with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2002’).

¶24

When the petition was taken up for final disposal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the auction proposed on 10.07.2020 was not held and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶25

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue regarding fixation of the reserve price

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:34317 WP No. 8988 of 2020

¶28

as provided under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002 may be kept open to be considered in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding when the respondent Nos.1 and 2 issue a further sale notification to sell the secured asset.

¶29

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off as having become infructuous. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to urge the question of fixation of reserve price in the event of the respondents bringing the secured asset for sale.

¶30

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, I.A. No.1/2020 for dispensation of production of certified copy of Annexure 'A' and I.A. No.2/2020 for permission to amend the petition and I.A. No.3/2020 for stay are rejected.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

SMA

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Mrs Shahnaz Begum v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Shahnaz Begum v. the Authorised Officer

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

Vasanthakumar T P Vs Aslam Pasha

Mirle Varadaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Deepchand Jain Vs Sri.K.N.Shreyas

Sri Sunil H v Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sasken Technologies Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-6

Sri K.L. Srihari Vs the State of Karnataka