Disposed

Sri. Nitin Subramanian v. the Authorised Officer/

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2024WA/518/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought to withdraw a writ appeal challenging a bank's SARFAESI sale proceedings, citing financial burden. The bank opposed liberty to withdraw the balance amount on grounds he was not the sole legal representative. Court permitted withdrawal as not pressed with liberty to prove his entitlement before an appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Appeal permitted to be withdrawn as not pressed, with liberty to pursue claim to balance amount with the bank before appropriate forum.

Sri. Nitin Subramanian Vs the Authorised Officer/ — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43673-DB WA No. 518 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2023 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. NITIN SUBRAMANIAN S/O LATE RAMA IYER SUBRAMANIAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.992, 4^TH CROSS H.M.T. LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 097

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/ ASST. GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK (A BANKING COMPANY A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES) (EARLIER SYNDICATE BANK) VIDYARANYAPURAM BRANCH NO.962, BEL EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VIDYARANYAPURA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 097

¶16

LOKESH HANUMANTHARAYA GOWDA S/O HANUMANTHARAYA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.4, 50/2, 'LAKHSMI' DODDABETTAHALLI LAYOUT

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:43673-DB WA No. 518 of 2023

¶19

VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 097

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. VIDYA PAI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. NAYANA TARA B.G, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SHARATH MULIA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND THEREBY SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.04.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN W. P. No. 2546/2023 (GM-DRT) AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET-ASIDE OR QUASH THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT BANK UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, AND ETC.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶27

The memo dated 05.06.2024 is filed, signed by

¶28

appellant as well as the advocate for appellant. The memo reads as follows:

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43673-DB WA No. 518 of 2023

¶30

"The appellant respectfully submits that due to over whelming financial burden he is not able to continue the writ appeal. The sale consideration after deducting the due amounts is available with Respondent Bank. In the said background the Appellant may kindly be permitted to withdraw the writ appeal as not pressed with liberty to withdraw the remaining amount with the Respondent Bank. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the writ appeal as not pressed with liberty to receive the balance amount available with the Respondent Bank as per Law and to grant such other and further relief in the interest of justice."

¶31

Heard learned counsel Sri Shirish Krishna for appellant, learned counsel Smt.Vidya Pai for learned counsel Smt.Nayana Tara, for respondent and learned counsel Sri Sharath Mulia for respondent No.2.

¶32

In the above memo, the appellant has sought

¶33

for permission to withdraw the appeal as not pressed with

¶34

liberty to withdraw the remaining amount with the respondent bank. The said memo is opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.1 to the extent the appellant

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:43673-DB WA No. 518 of 2023

¶37

has sought liberty to withdraw the remaining amount with

¶38

the respondent-Bank on the ground that he is not the only legal representative.

¶39

In the above circumstances, we deem it

¶40

appropriate to allow the appellant to withdraw the appeal as not pressed with liberty to the appellant to prove his claim/entitlement for the balance amount which is with the

¶41

respondent-Bank, before appropriate Forum.

¶42

Ordered accordingly.

¶43

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶45

PSJ

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri. Nitin Subramanian v. the Authorised Officer/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nitin Subramanian 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Herald Rodrigues Vs the Registrar

Sri Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Abdul Rahim K Vs the State of Karnataka

The Board of Directors of Vs Smt Mumtaz

Sri. Nagesh K Vs Sri. C Y Paramashivaiah

Sri. Ramachandran Vs Deputy Commissioner