Disposed

Mr. Sathish S.K. v. Uco Bank

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024WP/4101/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a bank's sale notice, sale certificate and its registration following SARFAESI proceedings. The court declined to decide on merits, noting the efficacious Section 18 DRAT appeal remedy, and disposed of the petition reserving liberty to appeal with interim order protection and limitation-period benefit.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file appeal before DRAT Chennai under Section 18 SARFAESI Act within six weeks; interim order to continue if appealed; benefit of Section 14 Limitation Act.

Mr. Sathish S.K. Vs Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22157 WP No. 4101 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4101 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SATHISH S.K. S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NO.53/1, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, KOTTIGEPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHARATHKUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

UCO BANK JAYANAGAR BRANCH, BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.238/35, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 111, REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶12

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MRS. SHYLAJA K W/O MR T SREENIVASA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.32/2-1, 6^TH CROSS, CHOLUR PALYA, BANGALORE – 560 023.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PARASHURAM K R., ADV. FOR R-1; SRI. K.V. HARSHITHA RAJ., ADV. FOR R-2)

¶15

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SALE NOTICE DTD 09.05.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R1 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:22157 WP No. 4101 of 2024

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶21

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the impugned sale notice dated 09.05.2022 vide Annexure – A issued by 1^st Respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned.

¶22

b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the impugned Sale Certificate dated 06.06.2022 vide Annexure – B issued by 1^st Respondent in favour of 2^nd respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned.

¶23

c) To set aside the registration of Sale Certificate as Per Annexure –B registered on 23.06.2022 issued by 1^st respondent.

¶24

d) Direct the 1^st Respondent to receive the balance loan amount from the petitioner if any.

¶25

e) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶27

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides, having regard to the availability of equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 18 of the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:22157 WP No. 4101 of 2024

¶31

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act’) by filing an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai, as against the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in S.A.No.556/2022 and subsequent order dated 07.02.2024 passed in S.A.No.514/2022, 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 the jurisdictional DRAT, Chennai, under Section 18 of the said Act of 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.

¶32

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:22157 WP No. 4101 of 2024

¶34

All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are

¶35

kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73

Mr. Sathish S.K. v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sathish S.K. v. Uco Bank

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 Smart Tech Furnitures Vs Bengaluru North University

Mr G Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmikanthamma Vs Sri. T. Balaji Prasad

Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Vs Sri. Amargundappa a. Meti

Bylappa M B Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shefali Chopra Vs M/S Axis Bank Ltd.