Disposed

Mr Manjunath R v. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024WP/4500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Section 14 SARFAESI possession order and pre-possession notice issued by a lender. The writ petition was disposed of on counsel's request, reserving liberty to file a Section 17 appeal before the DRT within six weeks, with status-quo and Limitation Act Section 14 benefits if filed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file Section 17 SARFAESI appeal before DRT within six weeks; status-quo for six weeks and Section 14 Limitation Act benefit if appeal is filed.

Mr Manjunath R Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22320 WP No. 4500 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4500 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR MANJUNATH R S/O MR M V RADHAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/T NO 44/B RADHAKRISHNA NILAYA KALKERE MAIN ROAD RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU 560 016.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. RADHIKA.K, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KAVITHA D.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO LTD DARE HOUSE 2, N S C BOSE ROAD PARRYS, CHENNAI 600001 REPRSENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAI.M.PATIL AND SMT. SRIDEVI .,ADVOCATES)

¶11

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SEC 14 ORDER OBTAINED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD 19.12.2023 CRL. MIS. 50717/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU, DECLARING THAT THE ENTIRE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNED.

¶12

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

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22320 WP No. 4500 of 2024

¶14

ORDER

¶15

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶16

“ a) Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the Section 14 order obtained by the Respondent dated: 198.12.2023 Crl.Misc.No. 50717/2023 vide Annexure-H passed by the X A.C.M.M., Bengaluru declaring that the entire recovery proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the Schedule Property are illegal & in violation of SARFAESI Act, 2002 in so far as petitioner concern.

¶17

b) Issue a writ of Certiorari by quashing the PrePossession Notice dated: 02.01.2024 issued by the Respondent vide Annexure-J.

¶18

c) Issue writ of mandamus to Respondent not to take any action against the Petitioner and his Schedule Property and to accept the petitioner’s request to clear the legally dischargeable amount by granting a moratorium time of 6 months and by furnishing the Petitioner’s Statement of Loan Account till date.

¶19

d) Issue such other orders or direction/s as may be deemed fit to grant, including cost of the case, int eh view of facts and circumstances of this above case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶21

present petition may be disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22320 WP No. 4500 of 2024

¶23

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act’) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short “the DRT”) and both the parties may be directed to maintain status-quo as on today in relation to the petition schedule premises for a period of six weeks so as to enable the petitioner to file an appeal.

¶24

The aforesaid submission is placed on record.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid submission, petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT within a period of six weeks from today. If such an appeal is preferred within six weeks as stated supra, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as on today in relation to the petition schedule premises for the aforesaid period of six weeks and also the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶26

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stands disposed of.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

Srl.

Mr Manjunath R v. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Manjunath R v. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. 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

Star Health and Allied Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Kokila Vs Canara Bank

Shri Umesh Kondajji Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Fab Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation

Sri Vijaya Kumar S L Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr R Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka