Disposed

M/S Glacier Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. the Authorized Officer

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024WP/8820/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a bank's sale of plant machinery taken into possession under Section 14 SARFAESI orders, contending lack of jurisdiction. The High Court declined to entertain the petition on merits, noting non-compliance with interim orders and an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 SARFAESI before the DRT.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach DRT Bangalore within six weeks with Section 14 Limitation Act benefit; petition otherwise disposed.

M/S Glacier Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Authorized… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25326 WP No. 8820 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 8820 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. GLACIER BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., SY.NO. 73/3, KENGERI VILLAGE, KODIPALYA DHAKALE, VIDYAPEETA POST, BANGALORE - 560 060, REGISTRATION UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶8

MR. B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 53/2, 6th CROSS, 3rd PHASE, SIDDAGANGA CHOULTRY ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶9

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

(BY SMT. SOWMYA C.N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH -II, 2nd FLOOR, CIRCLE OFFICE, SPENCER TOWERS, NO.86, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25326 WP No. 8820 of 2024

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SALE OF MOVABLES PLANT MACHINERIES, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT BANK ON 17.02.2024 ANNX-E NO. BLC/ARM2/505MCF/2024 HAS NO JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY AND POWER TO SELL THE PLANT AND MACHINERIES WHICH WERE TAKEN PHYSICAL POSSESSION ON 23.06.23 BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER SEC.14(1) OF SARFAESI ACT, AS PER THE ORDERS DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED BY THE 32ND ACMM, BANGALORE, UNDER SEC.14 OF SARFAESI ACT, WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHECATED TO THE BANK AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In this petition, petitioner is seeking for the following

¶21

reliefs:

¶22

"a) To set aside the sale of movables plant machineries, issued by Respondent bank on 17-2-2024, has no jurisdiction, authority and power to sell the plant and machineries which were taken physical possession on 23-6-23, by the officials of the Respondent bank under sec. 14(1) of SARFAESI Act, as per the orders dated 1-4-2023, passed by the 32^nd ACMM, Bangalore, under Sec. 14 of SARFAESI Act, which are not hypothecated to the bank. b) To set aside illegal orders dated 1-4-23, Annexure-D, passed by the Hon'ble 32^nd ACMM, without jurisdiction, authority and power under the mandatory provision listed under sec 14(1) of affidavit clauses (i) to (ix), without pursuing, verifying the contents of the affidavit, is unsustainable in the eye of law and as such it should be treated a

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25326 WP No. 8820 of 2024

¶24

nullity, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds listed in the appeal, as the orders are passed after verifying the documents filed in support of the case.

¶25

c) To set aside the illegal physical possession taken by the bank on 23-623, as per the illegal orders dated 1-423, Annexure-D, passed by the Hin'ble 32^nd ACMM Bangalore, without jurisdiction, authority and power under the mandatory provision listed under Section 14(1) of affidavit, and without factually satisfying the contents of the affidavit visa-vis clause (i) to (ix), is unsustainable in the eye of law as such it should be treated as a nullity, and the possession may be restored to the appellants.

¶26

D) To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble High Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶27

2. It is a matter of record that the petitioner has not fully

¶28

complied with the interim order passed by this Court. Further in the light of the availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal/application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act 2002, 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 the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore within a period of six weeks from today and

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:25326 WP No. 8820 of 2024

¶31

if the same is done, the petitioner would be entitled for the

¶32

benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶33

3. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the petition stands

¶34

disposed of.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT: BHK

M/S Glacier Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Glacier Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. the Authorized 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

Sri K R Diwakar Vs M/S Hdfc Bank Limited

Sri. Mariyappa .C. Vs Canara Bank

Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Sanganagouda B Patil Vs Axis Bank

Dakshayeni a N Vs Union of India

Mr Wilfred Joseph Pereira Vs State of Karnataka