Disposed

Sri K Prasad v. M/S Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2024WP/2131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A purchaser from the borrower, himself neither borrower nor guarantor, sought quashing of an e-auction sale notice under SARFAESI and a one-time settlement offer from the bank. The court disposed the petition, directing the bank to consider his representation within eight days while sale confirmation was deferred for ten days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit representation within two days; bank to consider it within eight days; confirmation of sale deferred for ten days only.

Sri K Prasad Vs M/S Hdb Financial Services Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:3240 WP No. 2131 of 2024

¶3

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

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2131 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI K PRASAD S/O SRI K. RAMANJANEYALU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.8/9/123/1 3^RD BLOCK, 9^TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560011

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MEGHACHANDRA D N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

M/S HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. A NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT RADHIKA, 2^ND FLOOR, LAW GARDEN ROAD NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD GUJARAT-380009

¶14

REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.195/38, 1^ST FLOOR, HDFC BUILDING, 10^TH CROSS ROAD, WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE-560027

¶15

M/S SHREYAS HIND CHITS INDIA PVT. LTD. (NON-BANKING FINANCIAL CORPORATION) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.56/1, 3^RD FLOOR, 9^TH MAIN, 5^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:3240 WP No. 2131 of 2024

¶18

SRI M SRINIVAS S/O MR. Y V MUNIPAPE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS DIRECTOR

¶19

MRS PREETHI RAM MOHAN D/O RAM MOHAN B AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS DIRECTOR

¶20

MRS. B.G PUSHPALATH D/O BANGALORE GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶21

MR. SUDEEP SRINIVAS S/O MR Y V MUNIPAPE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶22

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.969, 5 'C' CROSS VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560076

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. V.B.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR C/R1)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE E-AUCTION SALE NOTICES DATED 04/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER / AUTHORISED OFFICER OF 1ST RESPONDENT BANK AS NULL AND VOID, NOTIFYING TO SELL THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY, VIDE ANNEXURES-A; B) DIRECTING THE R1 BANK TO MAKE A FAIR AND REASONABLE OFFER OF ONE TIME SETTLEMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTANT REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE RBI.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:3240 WP No. 2131 of 2024

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notice of sale dated 04.01.2024. The petitioner claims that he is neither the borrower nor the guarantor. It transpires that he is a purchaser from the hands of the borrower and the borrower had sold the property to the petitioner after entering into a mortgage with the Bank and deposit of title deeds.

¶31

Therefore, it is a case where the petitioner, a bona fide purchaser has been hoodwinked by respondent Nos.2 to 6, who are the principal borrowers. The situation now is that the borrowers have not paid the amount to the Bank and the Bank is taking steps under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act', for short) to sell the property, which stands in the name of the petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank would submit that this is not the first time the petitioner is coming before this Court, he had approached the DRT on two occasions and even before this Court on two occasions and all of them have been turned down.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:3240 WP No. 2131 of 2024

¶35

In the aforesaid circumstance, no order can be passed directing the Bank to stall the sale or consider the case of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he would negotiate with the Bank by submitting a representation. In the event, the petitioner would submit a representation in the next two days, the Bank shall consider the same and pass necessary orders, within eight days thereafter. Till such time, the confirmation of the sale shall not be made in favour of the auction purchaser, only upon an outer limit of ten days.

¶36

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri K Prasad v. M/S Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Prasad v. M/S Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

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

M/S Tumkur Grain Merchants Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Shivalingeshwara Enterprises Vs the Commissionerate of Agriculture

Manjunatha G @ Das Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri K C S Nair Vs Fedbank Financial Services Limited

Dr Mahesh Kumar Sahu Vs the Malleshwaram Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Smt Sindhu Boregowda Vs Sri Yashwanth Bhaskar B P