Disposed

Smt. Kokila v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2024WP/6756/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a single judge directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to immediately hand over possession of title documents held by Canara Bank. The court disposed of the petition by ordering the transfer of custody within one week.

What did the court decide?

Order directing DRT-1, Bangalore, to hand over possession of the title documents produced by the respondent bank in O.A.No.526/2002 to the petitioner within one week.

Smt. Kokila Vs Canara Bank — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22168 WP No. 6756 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6756 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. KOKILA W/O PRL LOBO AGED 60 YEARS R/AT 183/Y, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH PHSE 7^TH BLOCK, BANAKSHANKARI 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU 560 085. REP BY POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI KARTHIK LOY LOBO S/O SMT KOKILA ND SRI LEWLYN LOBO AGED 60 YEARS RA/T 183/Y, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH PHASE 7^TH BLOCK, BANAKSHNKARI 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU 560 085

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SADHANA.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

CANARA BANK NO 438, HMT MAIN ROAD GOKUL BRANCH BENGALURU 560 054.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO RETURN ALL THE TITLE DOCUMENTS IN THEIR POSSESSION PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF MORTGAGE AT THE EARLIEST.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:22168 WP No. 6756 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶21

(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Bank to return all the title documents in their possession pertaining to the property of the petitioner which was the subject of Mortgage at the earliest;

¶22

(ii) Award damages for causing harassment and mental agony to the petitioner for withholding the title documents without any authority in law;

¶23

(iii) Pass any other suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent which was the subject matter of O.A.No.526/2002, the respondent having not taken any steps to return all title documents in relation to the subject property back to the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank submits that all the original title deeds, documents etc., in relation to the subject property have been submitted by the respondent –

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:22168 WP No. 6756 of 2023

¶28

Bank in the aforesaid O.A.No.526/2002 and the respondent – Bank has no objection for directions to be issued to the DRT to hand over all the documents to the petitioner.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the DRT-1, Bangalore, to hand over possession / custody of the documents produced by the respondent – Bank in O.A.No.526/2002 immediately upon the receipt of a copy of this order and at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands

¶31

disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Srl.

Smt. Kokila v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kokila v. Canara Bank

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

Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Vs Sri. Amargundappa a. Meti

Mr. Sathish S.K. Vs Uco Bank

Bylappa M B Vs the State of Karnataka

Star Health and Allied Vs State of Karnataka by

Shri Umesh Kondajji Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Sarathi Traders Vs M/S State Bank of India