Disposed

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

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2024WP/1763/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a bank's sale notice under the SARFAESI Act was disposed of as infructuous because the scheduled sale did not take place. The court observed that the petitioner's deposit towards the interim order would count towards any future sale proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as infructuous; deposit treated as valid for future sale.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:6691 WP No. 1763 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1763 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. SRI SARATHI TRADERS, SHOP NO.6-3-17/12, APMC YARD 1ST GATE, KARATAGI - 583 229, KOPPAL DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. ARJUN P SUDDI, S/O LATE PHAKEERAPPA SUDDI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.162, NAJEER COLONY, KARATAGI - 583 229.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA, (REGISTERED UNDER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT 1955), STRESSED ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH-40564, GROUND FLOOR, AVANI EMPORLO, JAYACHAMARAJA NAGAR, HUBBALI - 580 020, DIST. DHARWADA, IFSC CODE: SBIN0000846, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. (BY SMT. NATASHA N. MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:6691 WP No. 1763 of 2024

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SALE NOTICE DATED:05.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK, STATING THAT THE ENTIRE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayers:

¶21

"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari by setting aside the Sale Notice dated 05-01-2024 vide ANNEXURE-C 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.

¶22

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 11-01-2024 vide ANNEXURED to settle the OTS amount of Rs.70 lakhs by granting him a moratorium time of three months.

¶23

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."

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:6691 WP No. 1763 of 2024

¶26

Heard Smt. Kavitha D., learned counsel appearing

¶27

for the petitioner, Smt. Natasha N. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

¶28

This Court entertaining the petition on 18.01.2024, had passed the following order:

¶29

"Post the matter on 29.01.2024, in the fresh matters list.

¶30

There shall be an interim order of stay of the sale notice dated 05.01.2024, subject to the payment of 5% of the outstanding amount, on or before 24.01.2024.

¶31

In the event, the petitioner would not deposit the aforesaid amount, the interim order granted today stands vacated and there will be no impediment to the respondent - bank to proceed with the sale.

¶32

Office objections to be complied with, forthwith."

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶34

submits that the interim order dated 18.01.2024 is complied with.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank would submit that the petition is rendered infructuous, as the sale on the intended date, did not take place and therefore, the petition be disposed as having become infructuous.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:6691 WP No. 1763 of 2024

¶38

The submission would though merit acceptance.

¶39

The fact remains that the petitioner has paid 5% of

¶40

the amount as deposit to the account in the Bank. Therefore, in the event any further sale would take place, the deposit of 5%

¶41

should be taken as deposit of the petitioner towards any future

¶42

sale.

¶43

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands

¶44

disposed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT:SNN

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

Sri. Sathyapal Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Mr Prem Kumar Vs the Authorized Officer and Branch Manager

M/S Seven Hills Enterprises Vs City Union Bank Limited

Sri. Siddesh Renuka Vs the Bhavasara Kshatriya Co. Operative Bank Limited

Smt. Mumtaz Hameed Vs Canara Bank

Smt. Nagalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka