Disposed

Neelakantappa v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2024WP/7985/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash a sale proclamation issued under the Income Tax Act and RDB Act. The court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding dues within two months, with further merits determined based on compliance.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to pay the entire outstanding dues payable to the respondent Bank within two months from the date of the order.

Neelakantappa Vs Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19668 WP No. 7985 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 7985 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NEELAKANTAPPA

¶9

SON OF ANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, JALIGERE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-562125

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR P AND BHARATH K., ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

CANARA BANK NO.702, P B NO.12, GANDHINAGAR, DODDABALLAPURA-561203

¶15

RECOVERY OFFICER NO.1 DRT-2, BENGALURU, TELEPHONE HOUSE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE 560001

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI M.N. KUMAR, CGC FOR R-2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19668 WP No. 7985 of 2024

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED PROCLAMATION OF SALE-CUM E AUCTION SALE ISSUED UNDER RULE 52(2) OF SECOND SCHEDULE TO THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 READ WITH RECOVERY OF DEBTS AND BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1993 DATED 31.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE A AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶23

“a. Quash/set aside the impugned proclamation of sale-cum E auction Sale issued under Rule 52(2) of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 read with Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy act, 1993 dated 31.01.2024 issued by the respondent no.2 as per annexure A.

¶24

b. Pass such other orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper/under the circumstances stated above, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶26

Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the interim order dated 14.03.2024 passed by this Court which reads as under:

¶27

“Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:19668 WP No. 7985 of 2024

¶30

Sri Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.1 – Bank.

¶31

Sri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India accepts notice for respondent No.2.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a copy of the petition papers upon the aforesaid learned counsel, forthwith.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioner on instructions submits that Rs.15/- lakhs would be paid in the next one week.

¶34

Sri Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the sale has taken place today.

¶35

Therefore, all further proceedings taken pursuant to sale shall remain stayed, subject to the petitioner depositing the aforesaid amount, within a week into the account of the bank.

¶36

List the matter on 04.04.2024.”

¶37

As can be seen from the affidavit, petitioner contends that

¶38

only a sum of Rs.20,71,000/- as on today and the same would be cleared within a period of 90 days from today.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that as on today the due sum of Rs.23,14,184/- + legal charges + expenses.

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19668 WP No. 7985 of 2024

¶41

By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that in addition to the aforesaid sum of Rs.20,71,000/- petitioner would clear all other dues payable to the respondent – Bank within a period of 90 days from today.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – Bank submits even assuming the petitioners were to clear all the outstanding dues, the period of 90 days is excessive and same may be reduced. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the petitioner to pay entire outstanding dues payable to the respondent – Bank with a period of 2 months from today.

¶43

It is however directed that in the event the petitioner does not pay the entire outstanding dues within a period of 2 months from today, the respondent is entitled to proceed further in accordance with law. It is directed that a period of 60 days from today, the interim order passed by this Court will continue to remain in force and operate between the parties. In the event petitioner does not pay entire outstanding dues to the respondent – Bank within 60 days from today, respondent No.1 to forfeit the sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.23,14,184/-.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:19668 WP No. 7985 of 2024

¶46

It is further directed that the respondent No.2 - Recovery

¶47

Officer is directed to release / disburse the entire amount paid by the auction purchaser immediately upon the receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

Liberty is also reserved in favour of the respondents to

¶49

seek revival of this petition in the event any default is committed by the petitioner.

¶50

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed

¶51

of.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Neelakantappa v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelakantappa 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

Mrs Rajeshwari Vs Bank of India

J H Prasanna Kumar Vs Muthoot Mini Financier Ltd.

M/S Vandana Alpyine Projects Vs the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank

Mr. N. Lokesh Kumar Vs Canara Bank

Ramesh B Gowda Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Bangalore South Sports and Cultural Club, Vs the State of Karnataka