Dismissed

Smt Geetha Venkatesh v. M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limted

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/1269/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to restrain recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act due to non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to pay the process fee within the granted time limits.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear and pay the process fee.

Smt Geetha Venkatesh Vs M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limted — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45205 WP No. 1269 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1269 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. GEETHA VENKATESH W/O VENKATESH S, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.404, 4^TH FLOOR, SAI MADHURA ENCLAVE, 9^TH CROSS, 24^TH MAIN, J.P NAGAR 1^ST PHASE, BENGALURU-560078.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SMT. KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE: 27BKC, C 27 G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(E) MUMBAI-400051 REP. BY ITS: AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER.

¶11

M/S CITIFINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD., NO.17, ALNOOR BUILDING, HIGHGROUND PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶12

SRI P. SUBHASH PRAKASH S/O LATE T. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:45205 WP No. 1269 of 2017

¶15

NO.24, KUMAR ENTERPRISES, 9^TH CROSS, ITI LAYOUT 1^ST PHASE, J.P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. MAHABALESHWAR G.C., ADV. FOR R1, R3 SERVED.)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE R-1 FROM PROCEEDING WITH ANY KIND OF RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 (SARFAESI ACT, 2002) ITS RULES THEREON WITH REGARD TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

None appears for the petitioner.

¶22

Process fee has also not been taken in respect of respondent No.2.

¶23

This Court vide order dated 29.10.2022, granted a week's time to pay process fee and it is not paid. Subsequently, vide order dated 03.08.2023, one

¶24

more week time was granted categorically indicating

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:45205 WP No. 1269 of 2017

¶27

that if the needful is not done, the petition would be dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶28

Till today, neither the process fee has not been paid nor any appearance on the part of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution .

¶29

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶30

SSD

¶31

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt Geetha Venkatesh v. M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limted

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geetha Venkatesh v. M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limted

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jai Bharath Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Regional Commissioner

Sri M Ramesh Vs M/S Hdfc Ltd.

Sri G v Jayakanth Reddy Vs the Chief Manager & Authorised Officer

Fazlur Rahman Vs the State of Karnataka

Wg Cdr G B Athri (Retd) Vs the Chief Election Commission

Srinivas v Vs Vijaya Bank