Disposed

Mr B S Chidananda Reddy v. Tumkur Grain Merchants

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2024WP/5172/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging SARFAESI possession notices issued by a co-operative bank. The court declined to decide on merits, holding an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT was an equally efficacious remedy, and disposed of the petition granting liberty to approach the DRT.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file Section 17 SARFAESI appeal before DRT within six weeks, with interim order continuing meanwhile and Section 14 Limitation Act benefit.

Mr B S Chidananda Reddy Vs Tumkur Grain Merchants — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:28197 WP No. 5172 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5172 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. B.S. CHIDANANDA REDDY, S/O LATE B. SRINIVAS REDDY, AGED 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 4981, SRE LAYOUT, TURUVANUR ROAD, NEAR RTO OFFICE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANDHYA U PRABHU.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER, REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, ADMIN OFFICE, B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 103.

¶13

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

S.R. MOTORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, SMT. ARCHANA MANDLUR AND MR. AJAY KUMAR MANDLUR, NO. 1, SY. NO. 20/1, PAPREDDYPALYA, 80 FEET ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶15

SRI. AJAY KUMAR MUNDLUR, S/O SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA, MAJOR, NO. 501, KAKKATHEEYA RESIDENCY, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BELLARY - 583 103.

¶16

MRS. ARCHANA MANDLUR, D/O SRI. AJAY KUAMR MUNDLUR, MAJOR, NO. 501, KAKAKTHEEYA RESIDENCY,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:28197 WP No. 5172 of 2023

¶18

KAPPAGAL ROAD, BELLARY - 583 103.

¶19

SRI. SANDESH B.C, S/O SRI. B.S. CHIDANANDA REDDY, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO. 4981, SRE LAYOUT, TURUVANUR ROAD, NEAR RTO OFFICE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶20

MEGHAVATH COMPANY PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. SAPTHAGIRI M.S, S/O LATE SHANKAR NAIK, MAJOR, NO. 36/1, MUNIVENKATAPPA COMPLEX, 7TH BELLARY MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶21

SRI. S. VINAYAK, S/O SETHURAM, MAJOR, SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, J.C. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶22

SRI. SAPTHAGIRI M.S, S/O LATE SHANKAR NAIK, MAJOR, NO. 36/1, MUNIVENKATAPPA COMPLEX, BELLARY MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B.S. MAHENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING POSSESSION NOTICES BEARING NO.TGMCB/SEC/384/2022-23, NO.TGMCB/SEC/385/2022-23 AND NO,TGMCB/SEC/386/2022-23, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT BANK DATED 20.02.2023 PRODUCED AT ANNX- D, E AND F IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28197 WP No. 5172 of 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

In this petition, petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing possession notices bearing No.TGMCB/SEC/384/2022-23, No.TGMCB/SEC/385/2022-23 and No.TGMCB/SEC/386/2022-23, issued by respondent bank dated 20/02/2023 produced at Annexure-D,E&F in respect of schedule property.

¶30

b) Grant any such further and other relief as this Hon'ble court may consider fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and.”

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶32

counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶33

3. Though several contentions have been urged by both

¶34

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 the jurisdictional DRT under Section 17 of the said Act of 2002 by

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28197 WP No. 5172 of 2023

¶36

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.

¶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

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK

Mr B S Chidananda Reddy v. Tumkur Grain Merchants

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr B S Chidananda Reddy v. Tumkur Grain Merchants

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 Green -O- Tech India Vs M/S Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.

Sunil Rao G K Vs Lingadevachari @ Lingadevarajachar

B.A. Nagendra Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Srisai Solar Technologies Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sarasamma .C Vs Karnataka State Finance Corporation

M/S Renukamba Fuels Vs State of Karnataka