Dismissed

Giriraj S/O Virupakshappa Gireppanavar v. the Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/105880/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by absolute owners of mortgaged property seeking to quash initiation of proceedings under Section 14 of the SERFAESI Act. The Court held that though the petitioners were willing to pay the dues, it could not interfere as the Act is a self-contained code and remedies must be exhausted under it.

What the court decided

AI extract

Giriraj S/O Virupakshappa Gireppanavar Vs the… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997 WP No. 105880 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 105880 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GIRIRAJ S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA GIREPPANNAVAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. SHINDIHATTI VILLAGE, HIDAKAL DAM POST, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI-591107.

¶10

ANNAPURNA W/O. GIRIRAJ GIREPPANNAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. SHINDIHATTI VILLAGE, HIDAKAL DAM POST, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI-591107.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MANJANNA E

¶15

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU, HIDKAL DAM BRANCH, HIDKAL DAM, BELAGAVI-591107, REP. BY ANIL PATIL S/O. YASHWANTH PATIL.

¶17

DATTATRAYA S/O. MAHADEV HAJJE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. SHINDIHATTI VILLAGE, HIDAKAL DAM POST, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI-591107.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI VEERESH S. SAJJAN, FOR SMT.SRIYA S. KATAGIMATH, ADVOCATE.)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE CRI.MISC.NO.178/2024

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997 WP No. 105880 of 2024

¶22

BEFORE THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. AT BELAGAVI AND SEEK AN ORDER DATED 31.08.2024 UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY ACT, 2002, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶27

learned counsel for the respondent bank.

¶28

2. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.178/2024 pending before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Belagavi. Petitioners are the absolute owners of the property bearing VPC No.149 measuring 22 x 55 feet and VPC No.151 measuring 24 x 55 feet, situated at Sindihatti village, Post Hidkaldam in Hukkeri taluka of Belagavi district and they had obtained loan from the respondent bank by way of mortgage and the property in question was given as security. It is the contention of petitioners that they were making regular payments of the loan amount to the bank and requested the bank to make one time settlement to settle the dispute.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997 WP No. 105880 of 2024

¶30

3. This being the state of affairs, petitioners were served with a sale notice on 08.07.2022 under section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2012 (SERFAESI Act) for auction of the above said property to hand over the same to the authorized officer, Canara Bank, Hidkal Branch through M/s.Canbank Compute Service Limited, Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.

¶31

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank is illegal, contrary to provisions of law and violative of the principles of natural justice. He submits that he is ready and willing to pay the amount which was due earlier. Accordingly, in view of initiation of these proceedings under section 14 of the SERFAESI Act, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the quashing of the initiation of proceedings.

¶32

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶33

the petitioners are ready and willing to pay Rs.1,78,562-96,

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997 WP No. 105880 of 2024

¶35

which was actually due to be paid to the bank. Hence, this petition.

¶36

6. Learned counsel representing the bank contends

¶37

that the petitioners had participated before the DRT proceedings and thereafter challenged the sale notice as well and unsuccessful, but has approached this Court once again questioning the initiation of proceedings, under section 14 of the SERFAESI Act. Learned counsel for the respondent bank relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.Virupaksha and another vs. State of Karnataka,

¶38

reported in (2020) 4 SCC 440 contending that the SERFAESI Act is a code by itself and the said Act provides for remedy for borrowers for redressal of their disputes. He also contends that the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments, including the one cited hereinabove, has laid down that in the writ jurisdiction the Courts should not normally interfere with the proceedings of the SERFAESI Act, where the petitioner is borrower or guarantor has borrowed loan, given guarantee for obtaining loan from the bank. Therefore, he contends that the petition be dismissed.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997 WP No. 105880 of 2024

¶40

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent bank, though this Court has sympathy with the petitioners, unfortunately it cannot interfere with the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank under section 14 of the SERFAESI Act, as it has followed the procedure as contemplated under the SERFAESI Act, which is a code by itself. The principles and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court cannot be deviated and this Court should not interfere in such proceedings where the SERFAESI Act, is a code by itself and remedies have to be exhausted as per the said Act. Under the circumstances, this petition is devoid of merits as it is not maintainable. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.

¶43

ii) Petitioners are at liberty to explore alternative

¶44

remedy for recovery of any extra or outstanding amount over and above the loan amount and the respondent bank shall make good the said amount to the petitioners in case

¶45