Disposed

Pattadi Bavu Ibrahim v. Indian Overseas Bank

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2024WP/11581/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging bank auction notices under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Court noted the proper remedy lay before the DRT and that the prayers were rendered infructuous by time; disposed with liberty to pursue available legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to raise contentions in any legally available proceedings; prayers not granted as infructuous.

Pattadi Bavu Ibrahim Vs Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47867 WP No. 11581 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WRIT PETITION NO. 11581 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PATTADI BAVU IBRAHIM S/O LATE BAVU IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT PATTADI HOUSE AFEEZA COMPOUND, HOSANGADI PERINJE POST, MUDABEDARE MANGALORE, D.K.-574 227

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK MUDABIDARE BRANCH NISHMITHA TOWERS NEAR BUS STAND, MUDABIDARE MANGALORE, D.K.-574 227 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE AUCTION NOTICES DATED 17.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNXEXURE-A TO A2 AND ETC.

¶14

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:47867 WP No. 11581 of 2021

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶20

"(a) To quash or set aside the auction notices dated 17.02.2020 issued by the respondent produced as Annexure-A to A2.

¶21

(b) To grant such other relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in so far concerned petitioner only."

¶22

2. Having considered the contentions raised in the

¶23

writ petition and the material placed on record, it is clear that the challenge raised is against the Notice issued under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ('Rules of 2002' for short).

¶24

It is tried law that the proper remedy available to the petitioner was to approach the DRT seeking remedies.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:47867 WP No. 11581 of 2021

¶27

This writ petition was filed as early as on 18.03.2020. It appears that the matter was listed only once on 20.07.2023 and was adjourned for four weeks to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter. Even today, both the learned counsel appearing on either side, seek an adjournment. No arguments are placed on record.

¶28

The prayers sought for would have been rendered infructuous by efflux of time. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise his contentions in any proceedings, which are legally available to him.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed

¶30

of .

¶31

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶32

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Pattadi Bavu Ibrahim v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pattadi Bavu Ibrahim v. Indian Overseas Bank

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

Smt. Kalpana .a Vs Can Fin Homes Limited

Advance Mechanical Services Private Limited Vs Union of India

Smt. Bhumadevi R Vs Sree Thyagaraja Co. Operative Bank Ltd.