Writ petition challenging a bank's demand notice was dismissed after the petitioner breached an interim order requiring deposit of 30% of the outstanding dues in two installments; nothing was paid and the interim order stood vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:2511 WP No. 23573 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23573 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S RAMA HITECH POWER TECH, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM SITE NO.66, SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, YESHWANTHA PURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 562 130, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER/ AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. S. VINODH.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RUDRABHUSHAN C.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER Digitally signed by CITY UNION BANK LTD., PADMAVATHI B K A LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED Location: HIGH COURT OF ON 31ST OCT, 1904, KARNATAKA CREDIT RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT, "NARAYANA", ADMINISTRAITVE, OFFICE, NO.24-B, GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM - 612 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER SRI. GOPINATH.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA HEGDE K., ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC:2511 WP No. 23573 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SETASIDE THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11/08/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Court on 09.11.2023 had passed the following order:
"The petitioner is before the Court calling in question a demand notice issued on 11.08.2023. The outstanding amount is Rs.7,56,35,730/-.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that if reasonable time is granted, the petitioner would deposit substantial amount and make the account regular.
The submission is placed on record.
The petitioner therefore, shall deposit 30% of the amount in due in two installments. The first three weeks he shall deposit 15% and the next three weeks he shall deposit another 15%, subject to the aforesaid condition further proceedings shall remain stayed.
Any deviation in paying the aforesaid amount within the time line as stipulated hereinabove, even of the first instance, would result automatic vacation of the interim order and would also run the risk of dismissal of the petition itself.
In the event the petitioner would not comply with the interim order, the Bank is at liberty to take possession of the property and take the proceedings to its logical conclusion.
List this matter on 29.11.2023."
NC: 2024:KHC:2511 WP No. 23573 of 2023
The direction was to pay 30% of the outstanding amount at Rs.7,56,35,730/- in two equal monthly installments of 15% each. It was clearly indicated that any deviation even in the first instance, the petition itself would be dismissed.
would submit that not even a rupee is paid pursuant to the order dated 09.11.2023. Therefore, there is blatant breach of the order.
Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SJK
1 issue framed by the court
Should the demand notice be quashed where the petitioner failed to deposit 30% of the outstanding amount as directed in the interim order?
M/S Rama Hitech Power Tech
The Authorized Officer City Union Bank Ltd.
M.Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
