Dismissed

Smt. Parvathamma, v. Sri. Kanyakaparameshwari Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2024WP/2298/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition seeking return of title deeds and equitable reprieve for substantial overpayment of loan principal. The court noted the petitioners had breached multiple interim orders across eight previous petitions and dismissed the current petition as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no relief granted.

Smt. Parvathamma, Vs Sri. Kanyakaparameshwari… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2298 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O. LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.5204, 2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH BLOCK, ANRIYA DWELLINGTON APARTMENT, RMV II STAGE, DOLLARS COLONY, BENGALURU - 560094

¶9

SMT. P. USHA W/O. PRASAD AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.5204, 2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH BLOCK, ANRIYA DWELLINGTON APARTMENT, RMV II STAGE, DOLLARS COLONY, BENGALURU 560094

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. NITYANAND V. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. KANYAKAPARAMESHWARI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., K. R. CIRCLE, MYSURU - 570001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT

¶15

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶18

SRI KANYAKAPARAMESHWARI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., K R CIRCLE, MYSURU 570001

¶19

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001

¶20

REGISTRAR OF SOUHARDHA CO.OP. BANK ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001

¶21

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE - 570001

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B.S.MAHENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i) DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO ISSUE THE ACCOUNT CLOSURE CERTIFICATE BY RE-DELIVERING THE POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PREMISES AND ORIGINAL TITLE DEEDS TO THE PETITIONERS CONSIDERING THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.36,50,000/- PAID BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAKHS BY GRANTING EQUITABLE REPRIEVE CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONERS GRIEVANCE AND ETC.,

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are before this Court seeking redelivery of possession of the schedule premises and original title deeds to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have already paid a sum of Rs.36,50,000/- and the principal amount borrowed was only a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the sale is slated to be held on 20.02.2024 and interim orders are required and the petitioners are ready and willing to comply with any condition that would be ordered by this Court.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - bank submits that the account became a 'Non Performing Asset' in the year 2015. The petitioners had approached this Court in several petitions, all of which, are either entertained or have been turned down, on the ground of breach of interim orders. The petitioners have also approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal in appropriate proceedings, which also is dismissed.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶33

Against such dismissal, the petitioners approach Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which also gets dismissed, on 23.06.2023. The petitioners have now filed this petition which is eighth in line. The petitioners had preferred W.P.No.43019-020/2016 as soon as the account was declared as Non-Performing Asset against a notice under Section 13(4) issued by the bank invoking Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, this Court on 20.02.2019 passed the following order:

¶34

"2. In these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the impugned notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

¶35

3. In view of the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6594/2018 and for the reasons assigned therein, the petitioners have a remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the petitions are disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioners avail of the remedy provided to them under Section 17 of the Act within three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Tribunal shall extend the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶38

petitioners and shall decide the application. Till then, the interim order shall continue.

¶39

With the aforesaid liberty, the petitions are disposed of."

¶40

(Emphasis supplied)

¶41

The second petitioner again knocks at the doors of

¶42

this Court in W.P.No.1503/2021, which comes to be disposed by the following order:

¶43

"In this petition, petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondent to consider his representation as per Annexure-K.

¶44

2. In the said representation dated 5.1.2021, the petitioner has stated that Debt Recovery Tribunal has passed a decree on 22.11.2019 directing him to pay a sum of Rs.21,48,276/-. Petitioner is seeking permission to pay the decreetal sum.

¶45

3. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed with cost of Rs.3,000/- payable to Advocate Clerks Association."

¶46

Then comes the third petition in

¶47

W.P.No.19067/2021 which comes to be disposed by the following order:

¶48

"The matter having been argued for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner has come forward with an undertaking that

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶51

petitioner shall pay 50% of the amount due in terms of the DRT Order dated 19.11.2019 along with interest that has accrued due and would accrue too, within a period of two weeks and the entire remainder within the two weeks next following; petitioner also undertakes to vacate on her own the premises if this undertaking is not adhered to, whatever be the circumstances and that in the event she fails to pay the agreed installments, the respondent can take the possession straight way with the help of police; this is fair enough.

¶52

2. Though the learned Panel Counsel for the Bank vehemently opposes the writ petition, regard being had to totality of the circumstances of the case including the intervention of Covid19, an equitable reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner lady, who has come forward with the fair proposal as above; after all, the Bank is interested in the repayment of debt and even for the delay, petitioner shall be paying the interest; thus, no prejudice will be caused to the bank by the grant of reprieve as above.

¶53

Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed off.

¶54

No costs."

¶55

(Emphasis supplied)

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶58

In the said petition that was disposed, as quoted supra , the petitioner had undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/which also had been breached. Several orders were passed granting extension of time, at intermittent intervals to the petitioners by this Court in the aforesaid W.P.No.19067/2021 prior to its closure. All of them have been breached, is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶59

Finally, an order comes to be passed on 18.04.2022 prior to the dismissal which reads as follows:

¶60

" ORDER ON I.A.NO.3/2022

¶61

The writ petition was dispose off by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021 granting some reprieve to the petitioner-borrower. Thereafter, twice the petitioner had moved the Court vide application in I.A.No.1/2022 and application in I.A.No.2/2022 wherein again some reprieve was extended. Petitioner has come up with one more application now. A Writ Court cannot be moved by serial applications in this way.

¶62

In view of the above, application is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is.

¶63

However, this rejection shall not come in the way of petitioner making good all the

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶66

arrears within a period of six weeks, failing which the Respondent Bank can take physical possession of the property with the aid of police."

¶67

(Emphasis supplied)

¶68

This also is said to be un-complied. Then came a fresh petition in W.P.No.19625/2022 before this Court, which also comes to be disposed by the following order:

¶69

" Petitioners are before this Court, calling in question a sale Notice dated 08^th September, 2022. This Court, in terms of its order dated 28^th September, 2022, stayed the sale notice subject to the following conditions:

¶70

” Interim order as prayed for subject to petitioners paying Rs.12,00,000/(Rupees Twelve Lakh) only to the respondent-Bank, as under:

¶71

(i) a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakh) only of the amount within three weeks,

¶72

(ii) another sum of Rs.4,00,000/(Rupees four lakh) only of the amount within three weeks,

¶73

(iii) the remainder, i.e. another sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakh) only of the amount within three weeks next following,

¶74

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶76

failing which, not only the interim order stands rescinded on its own, but it will cast its shadow on the merits of the main matter too. ”

¶77

2. Not a rupee was paid pursuant to the interim order. Therefore, there was non-compliance with the interim order. Later, on 01^st December, 2022, showing indulgence, five more weeks’ time was granted to deposit the entire amount of Rs.12.00 lakhs that was directed to be deposited in terms of the interim order dated 28^th September, 2022. Even to this date, not a rupee is paid. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs.6.00 lakh and is holding a Demand Draft to that effect. This would not be in compliance with the earlier orders. There is a breach of the order not once, but twice and no amount is paid.

¶78

3. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank would submit that the petitioners have not been complying with the order either passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal or by this Court and are filing petitions after petitions and this is sixth petition they have filed on the same cause of action.

¶79

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the situation that has emerged is due to the ill-health of the borrowers. The said submission cannot be entertained in the light of

¶80

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶81

non-compliance of the interim orders. This Court, on 01^st December, 2022 had emphasized on the fact that the petition would meet its dismissal, in the event, no amount would be paid by the next date of hearing. No amount is paid. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed on account of the earlier orders passed. The dismissal of the petition will not come in the way of the petitioner availing any remedy available in law, if available.

¶82

Ordered accordingly."

¶83

(Emphasis supplied)

¶84

The petitioners then approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Tribunal grants an interim order, which also has breached by the petitioners, the Tribunal dismisses the securitization application, against which, the petitioners approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the appeal also is dismissed on 23.06.2023. Now comes the eighth petition.

¶85

In the light of what is afore-observed, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners, who are knocking at the doors of this Court, time and again, in gross abuse of the process of law.

¶86

11 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:7121 WP No. 2298 of 2024

¶88

Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands

¶89

rejected.

¶90

Sd/JUDGE

¶91

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt. Parvathamma, v. Sri. Kanyakaparameshwari Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Parvathamma, v. Sri. Kanyakaparameshwari Co-Operative Bank 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

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

Smt. Mumtaz Hameed Vs Canara Bank

Smt. Nagalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Pushpak Products India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Pushpak Products India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Pushpak Products India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka