Dismissed

Sri M Vijay Kumar v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2024WP/31503/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of a notice and rejection letter under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that the notice was not time-barred under Article 63 of the Limitation Act despite an earlier sale of the property, and disposed of the matter with liberty to approach relevant authorities with benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of notice dated 23.06.2011 and rejection letter dated 27.07.2011 under SARFAESI Act dismissed. Liberty reserved with benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act.

Sri M Vijay Kumar Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51271 WP No. 31503 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31503 OF 2011 (GM-KSFC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SRI.P.MOHANSWAMY, NO.37, M.M ROAD CROSS, M.K. PALYA BANGALORE-560055

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HARSHA D JOSHI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION 1/1 THIMMAIAH ROAD BANGALORE560052.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER & GENERAL MANAGER (AR) KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION 1/1 THIMMAIAH ROAD BANGALORE560052.

¶15

SRI PRAKASH M. HEGDE M/S PRIME AROMATICS NO.16, 8TH CROSS, I "N" BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: SRI RAMANJANEYA V., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51271 WP No. 31503 of 2011

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-Q, THE NOTICE DATED 23.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS ALSO THE REJECTION LETTER AS IN ANNEXURE-S DATED 27.7.2011, ORIGINALS OF WHICH ARE AT PAGES 184 & 195 AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash Annexure-Q, the notice dated 23.06.2011 issued in No.AGM/R-II/A-12452/R-851 by the second respondent as also the rejection letter as in Annexure-S dated 27.07.2011 issued in No.KSFC/AGM/R-II/A-12452/R-1129, original which are at pages 184 & 195;

¶24

b) Grant such other relief/releifs as this Hon’ble Court deems it fit and appropriate on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, including costs of this petition, to meet the ends of justice.

¶25

Notice dated 23.06.2011 vide Annexure-Q was one issued under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51271 WP No. 31503 of 2011

¶27

‘the Act’). The main ground on which the petitioner has approached this court in the above petition is by contending that the portion of the property having been sold in the year 2000, a notice could not have been issued in the year 2011, which would be barred by the law of limitation.

¶28

The submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act has been issued to enforce the security interest in the mortgage created in favor of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and as such, it is Article 63 of the Limitation Act, which would be applicable and the respondent-KSFC having issued a notice in the year 2011, is within the time contemplated even though there is a sale, which has occurred in the year 2000.

¶29

The said submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is borne out by Article 63 of the Limitation Act.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51271 WP No. 31503 of 2011

¶31

In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice dated 23.06.2011 vide Annexure-Q has been issued beyond the period of limitation, is not sustainable and as such it cannot be said that it is without jurisdiction.

¶32

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶33

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach such authority or court as may be advised. In the event of any proceedings being filed, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the time spent in prosecuting the above writ

¶34

petition.

¶35

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶36

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri M Vijay Kumar v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Vijay Kumar v. the Managing Director

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. Nalini S. Rao Vs the Joint Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Hassan Co-Operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Mattikote Ashraya Plot Halu Utpadakara Mahila Sahakari Society Ltd., Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Department of Tourism

Almas Education Society Vs the Union of India

Sri B K Suresh Vs Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board