Disposed

Sudhakar Shetty v. Union Bank of India

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2024WP/3158/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking quashing of an impugned public auction conducted by a bank, the High Court held that an equally efficacious alternative remedy was available via appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Court disposed of the petition without expressing an opinion on merits, granting liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to file appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within six weeks.

Sudhakar Shetty Vs Union Bank of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20257 WP No. 3158 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3158 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUDHAKAR SHETTY, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNA SHETTY, R/AT B/68, B-401, AMOD COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, GOKULDHAM, GOREGAON EAST, MUMBAI-400 063, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

UNION BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATION BANK ROAD, UDUPI - 576 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶14

SRI. VITTALA DEVARU OF SRI SHIROOR MUTT, UDUPI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MATHADHIPATHI HIS HOLINESS SRI SRI VEDA VARDHANA THEERTHA SWAMIJI SHIROOR MUTT, CAR STREET, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶15

M/S KANAKA INFRATECH LIMITED A PROPRIETARY FIRM, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT MANGALYA,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20257 WP No. 3158 of 2023

¶17

C-WING, 5TH FLOOR, MAROL MAROSHI ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI - 400 059, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JAYAKRISHNA ANNAYYA SHETTY, S/O LATE ANNAYYA SHETTY, R/AT B-PALLAVI BEACH ANGEL, NEXT TO GODREJ BUNGLOW, RUIA PARK, JUHU, MUMBAI - 400 057.

¶18

M/S SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL, JAIL ROAD, HOSAMANE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶19

MAAX SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL R.M.R. ROAD, PARK EXTENSION, DURGIGUDI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR NARENDRA S. JAIN

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. V.B. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. RAKESH B BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R5)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED E PUBLIC AUCTION DATED 19/02/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 BANK VIDE ANNEXURE-K IN SO FAR AS THE PORTION OF THE SCHEDULE LAND IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20257 WP No. 3158 of 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶27

a) Issue a writ of certiorari, writ or direction, by quashing the Impugned E Public Auction dated 19.02.2022 on the file of the Respondent No.1 Bank vide Annexure K in so far as the portion of the schedule land is concerned.

¶28

b) Grant such other and further relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶30

learned Senior counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶31

Though several contentions have been urged by both

¶32

sides in support of their respective claims, in the light of availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act') before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru under Section 17 of the

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20257 WP No. 3158 of 2023

¶34

SARFAESI Act, 2002 by filing an appeal in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of six weeks from today, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue to remain in force and operate between the parties for the aforesaid period of six weeks from today. Further, if such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today, petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶35

It is however made clear that the tribunal shall decide

¶36

the rival claims of the parties without being influenced by the finding and observations recorded in the present petition.

¶37

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands

¶38

disposed of.

¶39

All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are

¶40

kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

GPG List No.: 5 Sl No.: 1

Sudhakar Shetty v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Shetty v. Union Bank of India

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

Mr. N. Lokesh Kumar Vs Canara Bank

Neelakantappa Vs Canara Bank

Ramesh B Gowda Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Ms. Xxxx Vs the State of Karnataka

Jawahara Vs State of Karnataka

V. Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka