Disposed

Smt Sukanya v. G Krishnamurthy

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2024WP/3146/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposed of two connected writ petitions challenging possession notices under the SARFAESI Act without expressing opinion on merits, granting interim relief for six weeks and reserving liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) within that period to claim limitation benefit.

What did the court decide?

Interim order to continue for six weeks; liberty to approach DRT within six weeks for limitation benefit; rival contentions kept open.

Smt Sukanya Vs G Krishnamurthy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:28587 WP No. 3146 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25238 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 25238 OF 2022 (GM-RES) IN WP NO. 3146/2023 BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. SUKANYA, W/O G. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,` NO.11, 7TH CROSS, SUBBAIAHNAPALYA, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SAILESH S. KATAREY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

G. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O DODDAGANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.83/6, M.G.ROAD, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 562 123.

¶16

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CRMD, BANGALORE EAST CIRCLE, 26-27, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MANAGER/ASSISTANT MANAGER.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PRABHU RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-A DATED 29.11.2022 IN SO FAR AS SCHEDULE A PROPERTY IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:28587 WP No. 3146 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25238 of 2022

¶21

IN WP NO. 25238/2022

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

M/S. DIGITAL CONMIX, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 58 OF THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SY NO.83/B, M.G. ROAD, OPP. MURALI COLLEGE, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

¶24

G. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O DOODAGANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 7TH CROSS, OPP. UTTAMSAGAR HOTEL, ASHIRWAD NIVAS, SUBBAIAHNA PALYA, BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶25

MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S/O MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.134, 3RD FLOOR, SRI. VENKATESWARA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, B. NARAYANAPURA, DOORAVANI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 016. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND P2) AND:

¶26

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PRMD BENGALURU BRANCH, EAST CIRCLE, NO.26-27, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶27

…RESPONDENT

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28587 WP No. 3146 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25238 of 2022

¶29

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

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS QUASHING THE IMPUGNED 60 DAYS NOTICE BEARING NO. NIL DATED 07.01.2022 ISSUED TO THE P2 AND 3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AS THE SAME IS OPPOSED TO ARTICLES 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ALSO OPPOSED TO THE PROVISIONAL OF THE SARFAESI ACT 2002 AND ETC.,

¶31

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

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

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶35

In WP.No.3146/2023, petitioner is seeking for the following

¶36

reliefs:

¶37

"a. Issue a writ, direction or order quashing the possession notice issued by the 2nd respondent at Annexure- A dated 29.11.2022, in so far as schedule ‘A’ property is concerned.

¶38

b. Issue a writ, direction or an order directing the 2nd respondent not to evict or eject the petitioner from schedule ‘A’ property.

¶39

c. For cost and such other relief this relief this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity."

¶40

In WP.No.25238/2022, petitioners are seeking for the

¶41

following reliefs:

¶42

"a) Call for records;

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:28587 WP No. 3146 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25238 of 2022

¶45

b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned 60 days' notice bearing No. nil dated 7.1.2022 issued to the Petitioners no.2 and 3 produced at Annexure-B as the same is opposed to Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also opposed to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act 2002.

¶46

c) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing the possession Notice dated 29.11.2022 bearing No. nil, produced at Annexure-C as the same is opposed to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also opposed to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act 2002.

¶47

d) Grant the petitioners the cost of this proceeding, and

¶48

e) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."

¶49

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶50

Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶51

Though several contentions have been urged by both

¶52

sides in support of their respective claims having regard to the availability, equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal/application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002,

¶53

without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of both

¶54

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:28587 WP No. 3146 of 2023 C/W WP No. 25238 of 2022

¶55

these petitions reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach the DRT in accordance with law. If the petitioner approaches the DRT in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today, petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶56

In addition thereto, the interim order passed in the present petitions would continue to remain in force for a period of six weeks from today.

¶57

All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept

¶58

open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶59

Subject to the aforesaid direction, both petitions stand

¶60

disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner.

¶61

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶62

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT: BHK

Smt Sukanya v. G Krishnamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sukanya v. G Krishnamurthy

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

M/S Srisai Solar Technologies Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sarasamma .C Vs Karnataka State Finance Corporation

Mr B S Chidananda Reddy Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants

M/S Neotecra India Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Brantesh Associates Vs Deputy Commissioner

M. Kumar Naidu, Vs Dewan Housing Finance Corpn. Limited