Dismissed

Bharath Kumar v. M/S Vijaya Bank

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024WP/7279/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act permitted a bank to take possession of property was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner failed to prove that the sum deposited under the interim stay order was actually remitted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for having become infructuous due to the petitioner's failure to establish compliance with the interim stay deposit.

Bharath Kumar Vs M/S Vijaya Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21681 WP No. 7279 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7279 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BHARATH KUMAR, S/O SURYA NARAYANA, AGEDA BOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18, 2^ND CROSS, OLD BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU-560 062.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. JAGADISH J.R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S. VIJAYA BANK, MYSORE ROAD BRANCH, NO.152, 2^ND MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER MR. S.P. NATRAJAN.

¶13

MR. PUTTASWAMACHARI, S/O VENKATACHARI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.302, 2^ND FLOOR, VAASTU PLACID APARTMENT, CHUNCHUGATTA MAIN ROAD, YELACHENAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 078

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. LOKESH K.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED.15.11.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE 2ND ACMM AT BENGALURU IN C.MISC.NO.8803/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:21681 WP No. 7279 of 2017

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act) permitting the respondent-Bank to take possession of the secured property asset from the petitioner is challenged in this petition. This Court granted an interim order of stay on 21.02.2017, contingent upon the petitioner depositing Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶22

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not provided any record or acknowledgment confirming that the petitioner has deposited the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with the respondent-Bank as required by the interim order issued by this Court. In the absence of such evidence, it is inferred that the petitioner has failed to comply with the conditions of the interim stay order. Consequently, it is presumed that the impugned order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has been implemented.

¶23

Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner in this petition is no longer viable or relevant for consideration, given that the conditions stipulated by the interim order have not been met.

¶24

Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed for having become infructuous.

¶25

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration in view of the disposal of the main matter.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

GPG

Bharath Kumar v. M/S Vijaya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath Kumar v. M/S Vijaya 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

Chandrashekar Vs Mr V2 Cargo Movers

K.S. Eshwaraiah Vs Divisionl Controller

Smt Rekha Vs Lokesh

Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh Kurub Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivakumar Patil Vs the State through Yadgiri