Disposed

Mr. N. Lokesh Kumar v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2024WP/4690/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandamus directing the respondent Bank to remove hypothecated movable assets from the petitioner's premises without causing permanent damage. Holding that any unintentional damage is a matter of cooperation, the Court directed the Bank to remove and take custody of the movables within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directions to remove defects of the respondent Bank to remove and take possession of all hypothecated movables within one month.

Mr. N. Lokesh Kumar Vs Canara Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19681 WP No. 4690 of 2023

¶3

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

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4690 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. N. LOKESH KUMAR SON OF NAGARAJ GUPTA, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.111, D BLOCK, I FLOOR, PRIME BLUE FOREST APARTMENT, HOODI GARDEN, MAHADEVPURA POST, BENGALURU – 560 048.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

CANARA BANK MAHADEVPURA BRANCH BENGALURU – 560 048 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. GENERAL MANAGER

¶13

(BY SRI. T. P. MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO TAKE ACTION REMOVING MOVABLE ASSETS, SITUATED IN THE SCHEDULE PREMISES WITHOUT CAUSING ANY PERMANENT DAMAGE TO THE PETITION SCHEDULE PREMISES BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:19681 WP No. 4690 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶21

“ i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent herein to take action removing movable assets, situated in the schedule premises without causing any permanent damage to the petition schedule premises belonging to the petitioner.

¶22

ii) Issue such other direction as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 01.07.2019 petitioner leased out the schedule premises in favour of on tenant K.Chandershekar Shetty who borrowed a loan of Rs.4 Crores 72 Lakhs from the respondent – Bank by hypothecating the movable items comprising of fittings, fixtures, kitchen items etc., situated / located in the scheduled premises. It is submitted that on 06.11.2021, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and erstwhile tenant K.Chandershekar Shetty under which the said tenant had handed over the vacant possession of the schedule premises of the petitioner who is in possession and enjoyment of

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19681 WP No. 4690 of 2023

¶25

the schedule premises including the movables comprise therein which were hypothecated in favour of the respondent – Bank.

¶26

The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that despite the petitioner being ready and willing to allow the respondent – Bank to remove and take possession / custody of the hypothecated movables situated / located in the schedule premises and proceed further in accordance with law, the respondent – Bank has not taken any steps in this regard and instead issued a notice under Section 13(A) of The SARFAESI Act, 2002 . In addition, thereto, the petitioner has also received the notice from the respondent - Bank dated 16.02.2022 at Annexure-D intimating the petitioner not to change or remove the movables contained / situated / located in the schedule premises which were hypothecated in favour of the respondent – Bank and as such the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank submits that if reasonable time is granted, the respondent – Bank would remove and take possession and custody of all the movables located in the schedule premises subject to the condition

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19681 WP No. 4690 of 2023

¶29

that the risk and cost involved in removal of movables has to be borne by the petitioner and not by the respondent.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondent – Bank to remove and take possession / custody of all the hypothecated movables situated / located in the schedule premises by taking further steps in this regard as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that in the event, some unintentional damage is caused to any of the movables, both petitioner and respondent will co-operate with each other and ensure that no intentional damage is caused to any of the movables or to the schedule premises while complying with this Order.

¶31

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands

¶32

disposed of .

¶33

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

Mr. N. Lokesh Kumar v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. N. Lokesh Kumar v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Rajeshwari Vs Bank of India

J H Prasanna Kumar Vs Muthoot Mini Financier Ltd.

M/S Vandana Alpyine Projects Vs the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank

Neelakantappa Vs Canara Bank

Ramesh B Gowda Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Bangalore South Sports and Cultural Club, Vs the State of Karnataka