Disposed

Vijaya Hospital v. the Idfc First Bank Litd

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024WP/22249/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrowers challenged a Section 14 SARFAESI Act vacating notice as address-less and undertook not to obstruct the bank's sale of the secured property. The court permitted the bank to proceed with the sale per due procedure, directing that petitioners would not be dispossessed until sale confirmation, failing which eviction could follow.

What did the court decide?

Bank allowed to proceed with sale in accordance with law; petitioners not to be dispossessed till sale confirmation, then to deliver vacant possession or face eviction steps.

Vijaya Hospital Vs the Idfc First Bank Litd — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:446 WP No. 22249 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22249 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VIJAYA HOSPITAL A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, SITUATED AT NO.13, 6^TH CROSS, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560057 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR. RAJEEVA LOCHANA DORAISWAMY

¶8

DR. RAJEEVA LOCHANA DORAISWAMY S/O DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SELF EMPLOYED

¶9

MRS. ROOPA LAKSHMI W/O DR. RAJEEVA LOCHANA DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SELF EMPLOYED

¶10

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

¶11

NOS.2 & 3 ABOVE ARE RESIDING AT NO.120, DOREMANE, 5^TH CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, NEAR 8^TH MILE, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU-560073.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. HEGDE PRAKASH R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE IDFC FIRST BANK LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT KRM TOWERS, 7^TH FLOOR, NO.1, HAMINGTON ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI-600031 AND HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT C-1, R.P'S PRIDE, 1^ST FLOOR, 20^TH MAIN ROAD, KHB 5^TH BLOCK

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:446 WP No. 22249 of 2023

¶18

OPPOSITE TO SHRI GANESHA TEMPLE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶19

AUTHORIZED OFFICER / CHIEF MANAGER THE IDFC FIRST BANK LTD., R.P'S PRIDE, 1^ST FLOOR, 20^TH MAIN ROAD, KHB 5^TH BLOCK OPPOSITE TO SHRI GANESHA TEMPLE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SURESH V., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ADDRESS-LESS VACATING NOTICE, DATED 19.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HAVING NIL REFERENCE NUMBER ANNEXURE-A AS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court called in question a notice dated 19.09.2023 which observed that the property of the petitioners would be taken possession of by the Bank on the strength of an order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002).

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:446 WP No. 22249 of 2023

¶28

The notice is dated 19.09.2023. The notice is

¶29

address-less as there is no indication as to whom the notice is addressed. This is admitted fact on a perusal of the notice

¶30

itself. The petitioners are therefore, before this Court contending that they are ready and willing to cooperate for the sale of the property. The only indulgence that the petitioners want at the hands of this Court that before property is sold they should not be dispossessed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank would submit that if the borrower who is in default in possession of the property, no buyer would come forward to buy the property.

¶32

His submissions are placed on record.

¶33

Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose the

¶34

petition with a direction/permission to the respondent - Bank to proceed with the sale of the property in accordance with law and after following all due procedure as is necessary in law. The submission of the petitioners that they would not come in the way of the bank proceeding to sell the property is noted as undertaking. The only indulgence as observed hereinabove

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:446 WP No. 22249 of 2023

¶37

that can be shown to the petitioners is that they would not be dispossessed from the property till the sale of the property takes place.

¶38

The apprehension of the Bank that no buyer would come forward to the buy the property would be alleviated by the observation in the order which can form the part of the auction proceeds. In the light of the undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from the petitioners, once the confirmation of the sale happens to the successful auction purchaser, the petitioners shall deliver the vacant possession of the property to the bank. In the event, the petitioners would not deliver the vacant possession on the sale of the property, the bank is at liberty to take such steps to get the petitioner evicted.

¶39

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

PMR

¶42

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27

Vijaya Hospital v. the Idfc First Bank Litd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Hospital v. the Idfc First Bank Litd

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

Mr Abdul Latheef @ Atbel Latheef Kannagar Moidu Vs the Authrized Officer and Chief Manager Bank of Baroda

Sri. Gururaj Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Dheeban Jagadeesan Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri .K. Sajan Aiyappa , Vs Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

The Karnataka State Government Grade I Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Babu Reddy T S Vs Mr P Thyagaraj