Disposed

M/S. Enn Ess Royal Automotives Pvt. Ltd., v. the Reserve Bank of India

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024WP/9197/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court disposed of the matter by directing the respondent bank to consider the petitioner's One-Time Settlement proposal within four weeks and restraining it from taking precipitous action on the mortgaged property during that period.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to consider OTS proposal within four weeks and restrained from taking precipitous action on mortgaged property for that period.

M/S. Enn Ess Royal Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Vs the… — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52251 WP No. 9197 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9197 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. ENN ESS ROYAL AUTOMOTIVES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO 123, PHASE II KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANTARASANAHLLI, TUMKUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SMT. SARASWATHI N.S., W/O NAGARAJU H.T., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.168, 7^TH MAIN, 6^TH PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 044

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.ADITYA G. ACHARYE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE, 10^TH FLOOR, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, POST BOX NO.10014, MUMBAI- 01 REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

¶13

CANARA BANK MID CORPORATE BRANCH MARUTHI TOWERS, ADJACENT SIT COLLEGE B.H.ROAD

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:52251 WP No. 9197 of 2023

¶16

TUMKUR-572 006 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.HEMANTH R. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RUKKOJI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED: 18.04.2023 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND DIRECTING THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE OTS PROPOSAL GIVEN BY THE R-2 DATED 21.01.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice issued by Respondent No.2, a bank, directing the petitioner to vacate the mortgaged property in pursuance of an order passed under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶24

This Court, by an order dated 21.04.2023, granted an interim order directing the parties to maintain the status quo. The petitioner further seeks a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that Respondent No.2 has not yet considered the proposal.

¶25

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2, upon receiving instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s proposal

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:52251 WP No. 9197 of 2023

¶28

will be considered in accordance with the law. Accordingly, I pass the following,

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

ii. Respondent No.2/bank is directed to consider the OTS proposal submitted by the petitioner on 21.01.2023 at Annexure-J and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶32

iii. For a period of four weeks respondent No.2 shall not take any precipitator action in relation to the mortgaged property.

¶33

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶34

BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 41

M/S. Enn Ess Royal Automotives Pvt. Ltd., v. the Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Enn Ess Royal Automotives Pvt. Ltd., v. the Reserve Bank of India

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

Smt Saritha Gouthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Koragakallu Sri Swamy Koragajja Seva Trust (Reg) Vs the District Commissioner

Veda Vyasa Bhat Vs the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious

Smt. Yogeshwari G., Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Rumana Bai Vs Union of India

M/S Agni Aero Sports Adventure Academy (P) Ltd. Vs Government Flying Training School