Disposed

Smt Ammayakka v. the Authorized Officer M/S Canfin Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2024WP/2598/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed to quash a sale notice. The petitioner deposited 20 lakhs following an interim order. The Bank was directed to refund the amount within four weeks. The Court expressly declined to determine the merits of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Bank directed to refund Rs. 20 lakhs deposited by the Petition within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Smt Ammayakka Vs the Authorized Officer M/S Canfin… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12456 WP No. 2598 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2598 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. AMMAYAKKA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O. NO.88/1, HRR LAYOUT HENNURU BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER M/S. CANFIN HOMES PVT. LTD., NO.19/5 AND 19/6 1^ST FLOOR KAREEM TOWERS CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI D.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICE DTD 18.12.2019 ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK BASED ON THE ORDER DTD 04.02.2020 IN HONBLE XI ACMM

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:12456 WP No. 2598 of 2023

¶18

COURT, BENGALURU, IN CRL.MISC.NO.50027/2020, UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE SARFAESI ACT, VIDE ANNX-K AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶22

“i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order to set aside the Notice dated: 18-12-2019 Annexure-H issued by the respondent bank based on the order dated 04/02/2020 in Hon’ble XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc. No.50027/2020, under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act (Annexure-K).

¶23

ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to release (discharge the petitioner’s subject property being BBMP/BDA No.88, katha No.156/88, Sy.No.588 of Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore situated in BBMP Ward No.24 (HBR) New PID No.024W0203-50 measuring East to West 30 feet, North to South:21 feet more fully described in Schedule A whereby to restore their possession.

¶24

iii. Pass any such orders which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:12456 WP No. 2598 of 2023

¶27

Heard Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.D.Narayan Swamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the sale notice challenged in the case at hand dated 18-122019 would be withdrawn.

¶29

Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner had deposited Rs.20 lakhs into the account of the respondent/Bank. The petitioner is not the borrower. Petitioner is the mother of the beneficiary of a gift deed. The said beneficiary has sold the property in favour of the borrower. The borrower is not before this Court. The mother today wishes to establish that she is the owner of the property and she is entitled to receive the documents and fulfill the obligations of the borrower. This would all be in the realm of disputed questions of facts which is to be established before the competent Court.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:12456 WP No. 2598 of 2023

¶32

Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner mother has deposited Rs.20 lakhs, this is an admitted fact. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid reasons, the Bank is directed to refund Rs.20 lakhs within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶33

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed. No determination on the merit of the matter is made by this Court.

¶34

Consequently, I.A.No.3 of 2023 also stand disposed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72

Smt Ammayakka v. the Authorized Officer M/S Canfin Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ammayakka v. the Authorized Officer M/S Canfin Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Annapoorneshwari Traders Vs M/S Union Bank of India

Sri D Rajshekar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Venus Surgical Agencies Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Chikkamma Vs Mahila Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

The Chief Executive Officer Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

Mahendra Labs Private Limited Vs Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited