Disposed

Yoganarasimha v. Recovery Officer -2

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2024WP/20418/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a sale proclamation in a debt recovery proceeding, claiming title to land purchased earlier. The court noted the auction had concluded with no participants, rendering that prayer moot, and held the impleadment prayer was for appeal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Contentions were left open and the petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file appeal under Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993; contentions left open.

Yoganarasimha Vs Recovery Officer -2 — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:23270 WP No. 20418 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 20418 OF 2019 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YOGANARASIMHA,

¶9

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA SHASTRY, R/O FLAT No. 302, TALLAM SHUDDHA RESIDENCY, 14^TH A MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, N.S. PALYA, BTM 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560076.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHANA B. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

RECOVERY OFFICER -2, DRT -2, JEEVAN BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR, No.4, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU 560025.

¶15

THE IDEAL HOME CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU 560098.

¶16

STATE BANK OF INDIA B. R. MARKET BRANCH, AVENUE ROAD,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:23270 WP No. 20418 of 2019

¶18

BENGALURU 560002, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER,

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI KUMAR M.N., CGC FOR SRI SUPREETH S. ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH SALE PROCLAMATION DATED 28.03.2019 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. RESTORE OA No.331/2007 TO THE FILE OF DRT-2, BENGALURU AND DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO IMPLEAD THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO PROVE HIS TITLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The present writ petition seeking the following

¶25

reliefs:

¶26

a) "Issue a writ of certiorari or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing Sale Proclamation dated 28.03.2019 in TRC No.1564/2017 in DCP No.7252 in OA No.331/2007 issued by Respondent No.1 vide ANNEXURE - E, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

b) Restore OA No.331/2007 to the file of DRT-2, Bengaluru and direct the Tribunal to implead the petitioner herein to prove his title in accordance with law.

¶28

c) Grant such other orders/directions this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case."

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23270 WP No. 20418 of 2019

¶30

The petitioner is seeking challenge to the Sale

¶31

Proclamation dated 28.03.2019 in TRC No.1564/2017 in DCP No.7252 in OA NO.331/2007 on the ground that the petitioner has purchased the land bearing Survey No.3 of Halagevaddarahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk vide registered document dated 12.08.2005.

¶32

It is stated that the petitioner has interest in the property in question which is subjected to dispute in O.S. No.2802/2004. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, sites have been formed and sold to different persons. One such site was sold to Mr. Jeetendra Shah. Jeetendra Shah raised a loan and committed default, as a consequence, proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.3-Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In view of the Sale Proclamation issued, present writ petition is filed claiming rights in the subject property.

¶33

Sri. Francis Xavier, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Bank submits that the proceedings initiated under Sale Proclamation dated 28.03.2019 has

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23270 WP No. 20418 of 2019

¶35

not been concluded as there were no participants in the public auction. It is submitted that in view of the above fact situation, the first prayer do not survive for consideration.

¶36

So far as the second prayer, learned counsel submits that the same is appealable under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. As alternative remedy of appeal is provided, a writ petition is not maintainable.

¶37

Sri. Supreetha S., learned counsel appearing for

¶38

respondent No.2 has not disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶39

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.3, prayer No.(a) do not survive for consideration. In so far as prayer No.(b), the petitioner is at liberty to file appeal under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

¶40

Contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:23270 WP No. 20418 of 2019

¶42

¶43

With the above observations, writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

VBS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Yoganarasimha v. Recovery Officer -2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yoganarasimha v. Recovery Officer -2

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

Manju S Vs Government of Karnataka

Muniyappa M Vs Mahila Co. Operative Bank

Sri. Y. R. Janardhana Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatappa Ananda Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Mookambika Construction Co. Vs the Authorized Officer

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs State of Karnataka