Disposed

M/S Sri Sarathi Traders v. M/S State Bank of India

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2024WP/10156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrower challenged a SARFAESI sale notice and sought an OTS moratorium. Interim orders required deposit of Rs.40 lakhs; the petitioner failed to deposit. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to appeal under Section 17 SARFAESI before DRT Bangalore.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; no relief granted. Liberty to file Section 17 SARFAESI appeal within six weeks with Section 14 Limitation Act benefit.

M/S Sri Sarathi Traders Vs M/S State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:22176 WP No. 10156 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10156 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S SRI SARATHI TRADERS, OFFICE NO. 16, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 5TH B CROSS, 2ND FLOOR, ABOVE SPIN SALOON, KENGERI SATELITE TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 060.

¶8

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

BRANCH OFFICE- SHOP NO. 6-3-17/12, APMC YARD 1ST GATE, KARATAGI - 58329, KOPPAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR ARJUN P SUDDI, S/O LATE PHAKEERAPPA SUDDI, R/AT O. 162, NAJEER COLONY, KARATAGI - 583 229.

¶10

(BY SMT. RADHIKA K., ADVOCATE FOR; SMT. KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA (REGISTERED UNDER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955) THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, BKG COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22176 WP No. 10156 of 2024

¶15

MYSORE BANK CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/ MANAGER,

¶16

STRESSED ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH - 40564, GROUND FLOOR, AVANI EMPORLO, JAYACHAMARAJA NAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580 020, DIST. DHARWADA, IFSC CODE: SBIN0000846 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY .,ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) SETTING ASIDE THE SALE NOTICE DATED 13/03/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK, STATING THAT THE ENTIRE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND HIS SCHEDULE PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief's:

¶23

(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari by setting aside the Sale Notice dated 13.03.2024 vide Annexure-H issued by the respondent Bank, stating that the entire recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank against the petitioner and his

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22176 WP No. 10156 of 2024

¶25

Schedule Property are illegal and in violation of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶26

(b) Issue writ of Mandamus to the respondent Bank, not to take any further action against the Schedule Property and to accept the Petitioner's Representation dated 30.03.2024 vide Annexure-J to settle the OTS amount of Rs. lakhs by granting him a moratorium time of three months.

¶27

(c) Issue such other orders or direction/s as may be deemed fit to grant, including cost of the case, in the view of facts and circumstances of this above case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

When the matter came up for hearing on

¶29

08.04.2024 this Court passed the following interim order:

¶30

Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. D.R.Ravishankar appearing for the petitioner.

¶31

List the matter on 15.04.2024 in the fresh matters list.

¶32

Till such time, the respondent shall not precipitate qua the sale that has already taken place.

¶33

Office objections to be complied with by the next date of hearing, failing which, the interim order stands vacated.

¶34

Subsequently on 18.04.2024 further interim order

¶35

was passed by this Court:

¶36

Heard Sri. D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Natasha Murthy, learned counsel for respondent-bank.

¶37

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petition is second in line and the sale notice is third in line.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondent submits that the sale has taken place, the auction purchaser has deposited 25% of the bid amount and the

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:22176 WP No. 10156 of 2024

¶40

confirmation of the sale is also issued to the auction purchaser.

¶41

Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the outstanding amount as well as the solatium to the auction purchaser.

¶42

Therefore, the respondent-bank shall not issue the sale certificate to the auction purchaser, subject to the condition that the petitioner would pay Rs.40/- lakhs within a period of eight weeks from today, in equal installments.

¶43

List this matter after ensuing Summer Vacation, 2024.

¶44

Liberty is reserved to the bank to move the Court, if the interim order is not complied with.

¶45

and finally on 05.06.2024 this Court passed the

¶46

following interim order:

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- would be paid by the petitioner on or before 18.06.2024. Re-list on 19.06.2024.

¶48

Interim order shall continue till the next date of hearing.

¶49

If the matter of record that, the petitioner has not

¶50

deposited Rs.40 lakhs before this court, as directed in the interim order dated 05.06.2024. Under these circumstances noting further survey in the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶51

Liberty is however reserved in favour of the petitioner

¶52

to file an appeal under Section 17, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore (DRT-1). In such an appeal is preferred file

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:22176 WP No. 10156 of 2024

¶54

¶55

within a period of six weeks from today petitioner would be entitle to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

M/S Sri Sarathi Traders v. M/S State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Sarathi Traders v. M/S State Bank of India

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

Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Vs Sri. Amargundappa a. Meti

Mr. Sathish S.K. Vs Uco Bank

Bylappa M B Vs the State of Karnataka

Star Health and Allied Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Kokila Vs Canara Bank

Shri Umesh Kondajji Vs the State of Karnataka