Disposed

M/S. Panchami Pipes Pvt. Ltd., v. the Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2024WP/6711/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrowers challenged a bank's possession and demand notices under Articles 226/227 after complying with one interim deposit instalment. The court disposed of the petition reserving liberty to approach the DRT Bengaluru within four weeks with Section 14 Limitation Act benefit, continuing interim protection subject to a Rs.50 lakh deposit.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach DRT Bengaluru in four weeks; Section 14 Limitation Act benefit; interim order to continue four weeks subject to Rs.50 lakhs deposit.

M/S. Panchami Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Authorised… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24555 WP No. 6711 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6711 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S. PANCHAMI PIPES PVT. LTD., A PVT. LIMITED COMPANY, HAVING ITS BUSINESS PLACE AT NO.4, DODDAIAH INDUSTRIAL AREA, SAJJE PALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 091.

¶7

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS, THE PETITIONERS 2 & 5.

¶8

SRI. VENKATESH GOVINDAPPA S/O. SRI. M. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2, MANDARA 2^ND MAIN, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶9

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. BHARAT BHUSHAN. V S/O. SRI. G. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 199, 16^TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.

¶11

SMT. THARA VENKATESH W/O. SRI. VENKATESH GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, MANDARA 2^ND MAIN, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA, NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶12

SMT. DIVYACHETHANA. G. V. W/O. SRI. KARTHIK. T. K., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 36, 36^TH CROSS, RR ELEGAN, FLAT NO. 203, 2^ND FLOOR, 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:24555 WP No. 6711 of 2024

¶16

(BY SRI. R. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., A BANKING COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT : THRISSUR, KERALA, AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT: D. NO. 61, S.B.H. ARCADE, WHEELERS ROAD, COX TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT QUASHING THE POSSESSION NOTICE DTD 27.10.2023 (ANNEXURE-B) AND NOTICE DTD 29.01.2024 (ANNEXURE-E) NO. RO-BNGL/151/RDN/264/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “a) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction or order quashing the possession notice dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure-B) and notice dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure-E) issued by the respondent.

¶25

b) And grant such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶27

counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶28

On 19.03.2024, this Court passed the following:

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24555 WP No. 6711 of 2024

¶30

“Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶31

Sri. Francis Xavier, learned counsel enters appearance for the respondent.

¶32

There shall be an interim order of stay, as prayed for, subject to the condition that the petitioners depositing 30% of the amount in due to the Bank within 8 weeks from today, in the following manner:

¶33

(i) 15% of the amount shall be deposited within 4 weeks. (ii) The remainder i.e., 15% shall be deposited within 4 weeks, thereafter.

¶34

(iii) Any deviation in paying the aforesaid amount within the time line as stipulated hereinabove, even of the first instance, would entail vacation of the interim order and would also run the risk of dismissal of the petition itself.”

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that condition No.(i) in the aforesaid interim order has been complied with by the petitioners, who have deposited Rs.41 Lakhs on 19.04.2024. It is submitted that on account of untimely demise of the mother of petitioner No.3 on 24.04.2024, the second installment, as directed by this Court was not deposited by the petitioners and the petitioners would do so if reasonable time is granted and the present petition may be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal,

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:24555 WP No. 6711 of 2024

¶38

Bengaluru (DRT) and by granting interim protection for the aforesaid period of four weeks.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made by both sides, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, 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 petitioners to approach the DRT, Bengaluru. It is further directed that if the petitioners approach DRT within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In addition thereto, subject to the petitioners depositing Rs.50 Lakhs within a period of four weeks from today, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue for a period of four weeks from today. All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶40

Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶41

BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

M/S. Panchami Pipes Pvt. Ltd., v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Panchami Pipes Pvt. Ltd., v. the Authorised Officer

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 Pattadi Sanitary, Vs the Authorized Officer / Chief Manager

M/S. Pattadi Sanitary Vs the Authorized Officer/Chief Manager

Sri. S. Mahadevaswamy Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Sri Karan Ramsisaria Vs Uco Bank Ltd.

Smt Chikkamma Vs State of Karnataka Under Secretary

Rahim Industries by Its Partners Vs the Branch Manager