Dismissed

Mrs Tanveera Samiulla Shariff v. M/S Icici Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024WP/3150/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought to be made caretaker of a mortgaged property so she could lease it and pay EMIs to ICICI Bank, and sought restraint on bank action against the secured asset. The Court deemed the prayers untenable disputed questions of fact and dismissed the petition with liberty to seek remedies before appropriate fora.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to petitioner to avail remedies before appropriate fora at an appropriate time, if available in law; no other relief granted.

Mrs Tanveera Samiulla Shariff Vs M/S Icici Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9430 WP No. 3150 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 3150 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS. TANVEERA SAMIULLA SHARIFF W/O LATE MR.ABDUL AZEEZ AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 29 5^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN S.K.GARDEN, BENGALURU – 560 052.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. BHAGYA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S. ICICI BANK LTD., REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER NO. 4/10, MYTREE TOWERS 1^ST FLOOR, WEST WING HOSUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO MAKE THE PETITIONER TO CARE TAKER OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY SO THAT SHE CAN ENTER INTO LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH THE PROSPECTIVE TENANTS ONLY TO FACILITATE THE PAYMENT OF EMIS WHICH IS PAYABLE TOWARDS THE RESPONDENT BANK ACCORDING TO THE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:9430 WP No. 3150 of 2024

¶18

RULES IN THE FACILITY AGREEMENT WITH THE BANK AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶22

prayer:

¶23

“(a) Issue an order or direction to make the Petitioner the care taker of the Schedule Property so that she can enter into lease agreements with the prospective tenants only to facilitate the payment of EMIs which is payable towards the respondent bank according to the rules in the Facility Agreement with the bank.

¶24

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction against the respondent directing them not to initiate any action against the secured asset due process of law.

¶25

(c) Issue a order to the respondent bank to furnish the statement of the payment made to the ESCROW account by the tenants.

¶26

(d) To pass any other order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶27

Heard Smt. Bhagya K., learned counsel for petitioner

¶28

and Sri Francis Xavier, learned counsel for respondent.

¶29

The prayer of the petitioner is to make her as the care

¶30

taker of the schedule property and the schedule property is the subject matter of mortgage. It is the averment in the petition

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9430 WP No. 3150 of 2024

¶32

that if the petitioner is made as the care taker of the scheduled property, she would enter into lease agreements with prospective tenants and further seeks that once the rents are received from the hands of the tenants, EMIs’ would be paid to the bank into the loan account regularly as per the rules in the facility agreement with the bank.

¶33

The prayer that is sought by the petitioner as aforequoted is on the face of it, untenable as they are in the realm of seriously disputed questions of fact. This Court would not access the right of a person to be appointed as a care taker of a particular property, which is already the subject matter of the proceedings before the concerned Court under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶34

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy before the appropriate fora , at appropriate time, if available in law, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶35

NVJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT:SS

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

Mrs Tanveera Samiulla Shariff v. M/S Icici Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Tanveera Samiulla Shariff v. M/S Icici Bank Ltd.

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

Smt. Sreedevi D.C. Vs M/S Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Spoorthy Integrated Solutions (I) Private Limited Vs Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (B.M.C.R.I)

Smt Brinda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr George Abraham Vs the Branch Manager

Mrs Smitha Vinay Vs State of Karnataka

Gnanendra C S Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.