Disposed

Smt Gangamma S v. M/S State Bank of India

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024WP/6390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner who purchased secured property before the borrower mortgaged it sought quashing of the DRT's rejection of her securitisation application. The Court directed her to seek appeal under Section 18 SARFAESI before DRAT and extended interim protection against dispossession for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Six weeks' time to file Section 18 SARFAESI appeal before DRAT; interim non-dispossession protection extended for that period, lapsing if no appeal is filed.

Smt Gangamma S Vs M/S State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11660 WP No. 6390 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6390 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT GANGAMMA S W/O SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.45, 3^RD MAIN ROAD KAMAKSHIPALYA RANGANATHAPURA MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560079

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M R NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA GUTHALU BRANCH MANDYA (40407) REGENT COMPLEX GUTHALU ROAD MANDYA - 571403 (REPT. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER) 2. SRI. N D GOVINDARAJU S/O DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.1, SHANTAVERI GOPALAGOWDA NAGARA PATTAGARAPALYA, BDA 40 FEET ROAD BANGALORE-560079

¶14

ALSO:

¶15

KONASAALE VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571403

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:11660 WP No. 6390 of 2024

¶18

SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE GURUSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS KONASAALE VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK

¶19

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571403

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A)QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01/02/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT BANGALORE IN SA NO.607/2019 AT ANNEXURE-H UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶26

"a) QUASH the order dated:01.02.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal-1 at Bangalore in S.A.No:607/2019 at Annexure - H, under the facts and circumstances of the case, or

¶27

b) ISSUE any appropriate writ order or orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit to grant by considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶28

Heard the learned counsel Sri.M.R.Nagabhushan, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.Vignesh Shetty, appearing for respondent No.1.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:11660 WP No. 6390 of 2024

¶31

What is called in question is an order of Debt Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.607/2019.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither the borrower nor the guarantor of a loan that is secured from the hands of the respondent - State Bank of India.

¶33

The petitioner has purchased the property from the vendor on 17.05.2017 and the vendor sells the property to respondent No.3 - borrower on 11.10.2017. Immediately thereafter, respondent No.3 has created a mortgage by raising a loan with the bank on 12.10.2017. Though these matters were projected before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Tribunal has rejected the securitization application filed by the petitioner.

¶34

In the light of the said rejection, the remedy to the petitioner would be to file an appeal under Section 18 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11660 WP No. 6390 of 2024

¶36

This Court, while entertaining the petition, on the

¶37

ground that the petitioner would be dispossessed any moment, had granted an interim order not to dispossess the petitioner, if not already dispossessed. Since the interim order is granted, I deem it appropriate to extend the same for a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶38

In the event, the petitioner would not prefer an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the interim protection granted would automatically vanish.

¶39

All contentions are left open.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Smt Gangamma S v. M/S State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gangamma S v. M/S State Bank of India

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

Sri Maresh v Vs Tumakur Grain Merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited Vs Sri Rangaswamy

Mr. Manoj Kumar Giriya Vs the Bangalore City Co-Operative Bank Limited

V. Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Tirumala Recreation Association Vs State of Karnataka

Hdm Consultancy Vs the Superintendent