Partly allowed

Sri Niranjan Kumar Dadhichi v. the Bangalore City Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2024WP/810/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a tenant in possession of mortgaged property liable to bank recovery proceedings must approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act. An order granting four weeks internal protection before dispossession was issued.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted four weeks time to approach DRT under Section 17(4A) of SARFAESI Act; in default, possession threat resumes.

Sri Niranjan Kumar Dadhichi Vs the Bangalore City… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:1458 WP No. 810 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 810 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NIRANJAN KUMAR DADHICHI S/O. LATE DURGAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.E-605, SALARPURIYA, MELODY APARTMENT, PANTHAR PALYA, NAYANDANAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 039.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V.B. RAVISHANKER, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE BANGALORE CITY COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.3, 1^ST FLOOR, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, BANGALORE,

¶13

REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER SRI. C.N. APPAJAIAH.

¶14

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

¶15

SRI. D.TULASIRAM S/O LATE DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, DEVANATHACHAR STREET, 5^TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE R1 FROM TAKING THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 01/01/2024 VIDE BCCB/AO/926/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:1458 WP No. 810 of 2024

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following

¶24

prayers:

¶25

" a) Issue a writ, order or direction restraining the Respondent No.1 from taking the physical possession of the schedule property, in pursuance of Notice dated 01.01.2024 vide BCCB/AO/926/2023-24 vide Annexure-A.

¶26

b) Quash the impugned order passed by passed by the XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore in Crl. Mis. No. 7172/2023 vide Annexure-B.

¶27

c) Consequently permit the petitioner to be in permissive occupation of the schedule property, with the mediate possession of the same being retained by the respondent No.1.

¶28

d) For award of the costs of these proceedings,"

¶29

Heard Sri. V.B. Ravishankar, learned counsel

¶30

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Lokesh K.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

¶31

The petitioner is a tenant in the property owned by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is the borrower from the hands of respondent No.1-Bank. The loan having become

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:1458 WP No. 810 of 2024

¶34

sticky, respondent No.1-Bank initiates proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022 (for short 'SARFAESI Act, 2002') qua respondent No.2.

¶35

The petitioner's apprehending that he would be dispossessed from the property, have knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition seeking no action be taken qua the property by the Bank.

¶36

The petitioner being a tenant has remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner shall prefer appropriate application/appeal before the DRT under the aforesaid proviso. The petitioner is granted four weeks time to approach the DRT under the afore-quoted provision of law. In the event they would not approach the DRT within four weeks, till such time, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property. In the event the petitioner would not approach the DRT and seek appropriate orders at the hands of the DRT, the interim protection granted in the subject order would automatically vanish.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:1458 WP No. 810 of 2024

¶39

6. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner to approach

¶40

the DRT, the petition stands disposed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:SNN

Sri Niranjan Kumar Dadhichi v. the Bangalore City Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Niranjan Kumar Dadhichi v. the Bangalore City Cooperative Bank Ltd.

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. K. R. Beverages Vs M/S. Canara Bank

Smt Parvathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Meenakshamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri.S.Nagaraju Vs Smt.Mangala

Topsack Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. G. R. Sheela Vs Sri. K. B. Yuvaraj