Disposed

Smt Vanitha Bai M S v. M/S Karnataka Bank Limited

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024WP/2541/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order under SARFAESI Act. Court held the petition insufficient/fructuous as a sale certificate had already been executed. Pending a direction to the Bank to communicate the balance sale consideration payable to the petitioner under legal entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Bank directed to communicate balance sale consideration payable to petitioner within two weeks.

Smt Vanitha Bai M S Vs M/S Karnataka Bank Limited — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13163 WP No. 2541 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.2541 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT VANITHA BAI M.S. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O SRI NARASOJI RAO R/AT NO.36, 1^ST A CROSS, ANUBHAVA NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 072

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMITHRA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH FIRST FLOOR, FKCCI BUILDING KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/ CHIEF MANAGER MR.RAJARAM P.N.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.K.V.SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.04.2022, PASSED IN CRL. MISC.NO.1799/2022 BY THE HONBLE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ON THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SETION 14 OF THE SECURITISATION AND RE-CONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSESTS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:13163 WP No. 2541 of 2023

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned petition is filed assailing the 14(2) order

¶22

passed under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act”) issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as per Annexure-

¶23

E. Consequently, a mandamus is sought to direct respondent No.1 not to confirm sale or take further action in enforcing the same as per the SARFAESI Act and further a mandamus is also sought to direct the LVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to afford opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her defence.

¶24

Pending consideration of this petition, counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has placed on record the sale certificate issued by the respondent-Bank.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13163 WP No. 2541 of 2023

¶26

In the light of the prayer sought in the captioned petition, this Court is of view that prayer sought in the petition will render writ petition infructuous. Though by way of an amendment, petitioner intends to challenge the sale certificate executed on 2.12.2022 in favour of auction purchaser, this Court, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110, is not inclined to grant any further indulgence. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Bank is in receipt of the sale proceedings, the Bank is not furnishing the exact details of sale amount and balance sale consideration payable to petitioner deducting the loan amount legally entitled.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid submission, the respondent Bank, within a period of two weeks, shall communicate and intimate the petitioner in regard to balance amount to which she is legally entitled.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:13163 WP No. 2541 of 2023

¶30

With this observation, writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

It is needless to say that this order will not come in the way of the petitioner in challenging the sale certificate

¶32

registered on 02.2.2022, in accordance with law.

¶33

SD/JUDGE

¶34