Disposed

Smt Janaki v. Mr Chimanlal Panwar

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024WP/4970/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross writ petitions by an auction purchaser and a bank against a DRT-II order setting aside a SARFAESI sale and sale certificate. The High Court found no merit in the auction purchaser's plea of lack of notice but, noting a statutory appeal remedy, disposed of both petitions reserving liberty to raise all contentions on appeal.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions disposed of; liberty reserved to file statutory appeal; interim order extended eight weeks; time in writ proceedings exempted for limitation.

Smt Janaki Vs Mr Chimanlal Panwar — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32310 WP No. 4970 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17376 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4970 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 17376 OF 2022 (GM-DRT)

¶9

IN WRIT PETITION NO.4970/2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT JANAKI D/O MR SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.30, 2^ND MAIN ROAD BELIMATT ROAD, BHAKSHI GARDEN BANGALORE - 560 053.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. MURALI S M.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

MR CHIMANLAL PANWAR S/O MR RAJARAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS C/O PRAVEEN LIGHT HOUSE NO.78-90 PVR MAIN ROAD JOLLY MOHALLA, BANGALORE - 560 053.

¶17

SMT KANYA BAI W/O MR CHIMANLAL PANWAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS C/O PRAVEEN LIGHT HOUSE NO.78-90 PVR MAIN ROAD JOLLY MOHALLA BANGALORE - 560 053.

¶18

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32310 WP No. 4970 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17376 of 2022

¶20

CANARA BANK BOMMASANDRA MAIN BRANCH K B ROLALE BUILDING R S GARDENIA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD BOMMASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 099.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. ASHADEVI S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. VIGNESH SETTY., ADVOCATE AND SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED:27.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNX-G; SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN S.A.NO.125/2021 FILED BY THE R-1 AND R-2 AND ETC.

¶24

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 17376 OF 2022

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

CANARA BANK BOMMASANDRA MAIN BRANCH K.B. ROYALE BUILDING R.S. GARDENIA HOSUR MAIN ROAD BOMMASANDRA BANGALORE- 560 099. REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER MR. SARATH S S.

¶27

…PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM.,ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

MR. CHIMAN LAL PAWAR S/O MR. RAJARAMJI C/O PRAVEEN LIGHT HOUSE NO. 78-80, PVR MAIN ROAD, JOLLY MOHALLA, BANGALORE - 560 053.

¶31

SMT. KANYA BAI W/O MR. CHIMAN LAL C/O PRAVEEN LIGHT HOUSE NO. 70-850, PVR MAIN ROAD,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:32310 WP No. 4970 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17376 of 2022

¶34

JOLLY MOHALLA, BANGALORE - 560 053.

¶35

SMT. JANKI D/O MR. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO. 30, 2^ND MAIN RAOD, BELIMATT RAOD, BHAKSHI GARDEN BANGALORE - 560 053.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT. ASHA DEVI S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:29.09.2021 PASSED IN S.A.125/2021 BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶39

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Petitioner an auction purchaser is before this Court in W.P.No.4970/2022, while the respondent-Bank in W.P.No.17376/2022 both being aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2021 passed in S.A.No.125/2021 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II, Karnataka, Bengaluru, (for short 'DRTII'). By the said order the DRT-II while allowing the application filed by the private respondents-borrower herein has set aside the sale notice dated 5.12.2020 issued by the respondent - Bank and has held that the sale to be in-gross violation of the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:32310 WP No. 4970 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17376 of 2022

¶44

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002. Consequently, set aside the sale certificate issued on 08.02.2021 in favour of petitionerauction purchaser. Further the respondent-Bank has been directed to refund the sale consideration amount to the petitioner-auction purchaser along with simple interest from the date of the receipt of the EMD and the entire sale consideration before initiating fresh measures under the Act.

¶45

The only ground urged by the petitioner-auction purchaser is that she was not served with any notice before passing of aforesaid order in S.A.No.125/2021 by the DRT-II and that the said order has passed behind her back. As such, the petitioner-auction purchaser did not have an opportunity to defend her case.

¶46

Respondent-Bank is before this Court assailing the said order primarily on the ground that the DRT-II could not have entertained the application filed by the private respondents as the same was barred by limitation and without

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32310 WP No. 4970 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17376 of 2022

¶48

challenging the sale notice the private respondents could not have challenged the sale certificate.

¶49

Counsel for the private respondents-borrower on the other hand submits that the petitioner-auction purchaser was impleaded in the proceedings in S.A.No.125/2021 on 16.03.2021 in terms of the orders passed in I.A.No.699/2021. That on 19.04.2021 the DRT-II had passed the interim order directing the respondent-Bank not to alienate the property. That private respondents-borrower had filed a complaint before the Cottonpete Police Station on 26.06.2021 and that the petitioner-auction purchaser herein had given a reply to the said complaint. Thus, she submits that pendency of the proceedings and order passed by the DRT-II was well within knowledge of the petitioner-auction purchaser and the petitioner-auction purchaser did not chose to participate in the proceedings. As such, petitioner-auction purchaser is not entitled for relief as sought for.

¶50

Heard. Perused the records.

¶51

In the Sale Certificate produced at Annexure-A to

¶52

the writ petition filed by the auction purchaser except showing

¶53

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32310 WP No. 4970 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17376 of 2022

¶54

the name and PAN number i.e., "Janaki S (PAN No.AFPPJ0817A)" nothing else is shown. There is no address or other details of petitioner -auction purchaser given therein.

¶55

The respondents-borrowers in the impleading application have shown the address of the petitioner-auction purchaser as "Mrs. Janaki S, C/o Canara Bank, Bommasandra Main Branch, K.B.Royale Building, R.S.Gardenia, Hosur Main Road, Bommasandra, Bangalore-560 099". The respondents - borrowers cannot be blamed for they not being able to give the address of the petitioner-auction purchaser as there was no address available in the certificate is as noted above.

¶56

The matter just does not end at this stage. The DRT-II had passed the order restraining the bank and the - auction purchaser from alienating the property on 19.04.2021. The respondent-borrower admittedly on 20.06.2021 had filed a complaint before the Cottonpete Police Station against the very same Mrs. Janaki, the petitioner -auction purchaser to which the petitioner-auction purchaser has responded putting forth her case before the said Police. Yet did not take any steps to participate in the proceedings before the DRT.

¶57

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:32310 WP No. 4970 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17376 of 2022

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner-auction purchaser vehemently submits that in the said reply she had given her address and as such it was thus incumbent upon the respondents- borrower to have given proper address before the DRT-II. This argument cannot be countenanced for two reasons. Firstly, in the sale certificate there is no address given and secondly, respondents-borrower with the available address apart from impleading her as party respondent No.2 had brought to the notice of the petitioner -auction purchaser about pendency of S.A.No.125/2021 and the order passed therein, by filing a complaint before the Cottonpete Police, which is not disputed. Petitioner-auction purchaser being completely aware of this aspect of the matter cannot be heard to say that she did not have opportunity to defend the case. No grounds are made out for interference.

¶59

As regards the issue of limitation raised by the respondent-Bank is concerned, the DRT-II seem to have considered the grounds urged by the Bank.

¶60

However, there is statutory remedy of filing an appeal provided under the Act. Therefore, without expressing

¶61

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32310 WP No. 4970 of 2022 C/W WP No. 17376 of 2022

¶62

any view on the merits or otherwise of the case of the petitioner-auction purchaser as well as the respondent-Bank in these two petitions, writ petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise all contentions in the appeal to be filed, if so advised.

¶63

Interim order granted by this Court is extended for a period of eight (8) weeks enabling the petitioner to prefer appeal.

¶64

Time consumed in prosecuting these writ petitions be exempted while considering the aspect of limitation.

¶65

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶66

RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt Janaki v. Mr Chimanlal Panwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Janaki v. Mr Chimanlal Panwar

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

Shivamogga City Corporation Vs Labour Inspector

Sri Nanjappa M v Vs the Managing Director

Sri Thyagraju Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Shree Toys Factory Vs M/S Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (Rarc)

Dr Prakash S Bulagannawar Vs State of Karnataka

Emmar Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Authorized Officer