Disposed

G Shivananda v. Branch Manager

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024WP/2806/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging sale notices issued by a bank was disposed of by the High Court of Karnataka. The court observed that the scheduled auction had not taken place, rendering the petition infructuous, although liberty to appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal was granted.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as the scheduled auction did not take place. Liberty granted to approach DRT.

G Shivananda Vs Branch Manager — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25866 WP No. 2806 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2806 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G. SHIVANANDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE GAVISIDDAIAH,

¶9

SMT. BHAGYAMMA D, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER SPL. GPA HOLDER, G. SHIVANANDA.

¶10

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. L10, BEHIND LADIES HOSTEL ROAD, JNANABHARATHI POST, BANGALORE - 560 056.

¶13

(SRI. G. SHIVANANDA, PARTY-IN-PERSON))

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, SULTAN PETE, CITY BRANCH, KAVIKALIDASA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶17

REGIONAL MANAGER / CHIEF, MANAGER RO EAST, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:25866 WP No. 2806 of 2023

¶20

BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. PRABHU RAO C.B, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICES DATED 11/10/2022 AND 13/01/2023 RESPECTIVELY AND ISSUE INJUNCTION ORDER BY STAYING THESE TWO SALE NOTICES UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THE ORIGINAL SUITS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE CIVIL COURT AND ALSO DIRECT THE BANK AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT DISTURB AND INTERFERE WITH HIS PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner is seeking for the following

¶27

reliefs:

¶28

"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash the Sale Notices dated 11-10-2022 and 13-012023 and 29/11/2023 i.e. IA 1/2023 respectively and issue injunction Order by staying these two sale notices until disposal of the Original Suits pending before the Hon'ble Civil Court and also direct the Bank Authorities should not disturb and interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. I further prays to stay one of the money recovery suits pending before 2 Courts and another O.S. is pending before the Hon'ble Civil Court in CCH 26 & CCH 33. I am ready to obey and follow as per the Orders in the said Recovery Case. I Pray before this Hon'ble Court

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25866 WP No. 2806 of 2023

¶30

that I am due 140 EMIs in Loan Account 140004, if they reduce the EMIS and reduce the interest rate as per the RBI rules I am ready to repay the said EMIs regularly and the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court to stay the Sale Notices dated 11-10-2022 and 13-012023 and 29/11/2023. And direct the Union Bank of India, Regional Manager to stop the online auction on 09-02-2023 and 29/11/2023."

¶31

Heard petitioner-party-in-person and learned Counsel

¶32

for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits

¶34

that the scheduled sale to be conducted on 29.11.2023, did not take steps and the present petitioner has been rendered infructuous.

¶35

The said submission is placed on record.

¶36

In view of the undisputed fact that the auction

¶37

scheduled sale to be conducted on 29.11.2023 during the pendency of the present petition did not take place, nothing further survives in the present petition and the same is accordingly, disposed of .

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:25866 WP No. 2806 of 2023

¶40

Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'DRT').

¶41

Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to approach the DRT within a period of six weeks from today. If, the petitioner approaches DRT within a period of six weeks from today, petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. So also, the interim order passed in the petition will continue to remain in force and operates between parties for a period of six weeks from today.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

PHM

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK

G Shivananda v. Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Shivananda v. Branch Manager

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

Sri P R Anandswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

P H Ismail Kallapu Vs the Branch Manager

Can Fin Homes Limited Vs Veerabhadran Doni (Borrower)

Sri. Vijay Kumar P Vs Icici Bank Limited

Karnataka State Licensed Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. S M Shivanna Vs Canara Bank