Allowed

The Janatha Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Kodandaramu R

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/9476/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the trial court's order allowing the respondent to implead an auction purchaser in proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the trial court became functus officio upon passing the initial order, making further impleadment inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.02.2024 set aside; impleadment application dismissed; liberty reserved for amicable settlement.

The Janatha Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Mr. Kodandaramu R — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20863 WP No. 9476 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9476 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE JANATHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD MALLESWARAM BRANCH, BRANCH AT NO.156, 8^TH MAIN ROAD 17^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM WEST, BANGALORE – 560 055. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER / CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MRS. VINODA SHIVARAMAIAH W/O SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MR. KODANDARAMU R S/O LATE RANGAPPA, NO.127, 2^ND PHASE, 5^TH CROSS, 40 FEET ROAD, MANJUNATHANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010.

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA V D, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/02/2024 PASSED ON THE IMPLEADMENT APPLICATION (ANNEXURE-H) TO IMPALED AUCTION PURCHASER MR. RAMACHANDRA AS ONE OF THE PARTY IN THE TRIAL COURT IN C.MIS.NO. 5918/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE -K)

¶14

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

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20863 WP No. 9476 of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 passed in Crl.Mis.No.5918/2017, whereby the application filed by the respondent seeking impleadment of one Mr. Ramachandra B.H. S/o Honnegowda, to the said proceedings was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶18

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

¶19

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.5918/2017 initiated by the petitioner-Bank under the provision of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act’), the Trial Court passed an order on 29.04.2019 allowing the application/petition filed by the petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Subsequently, the respondent in the said proceedings in Crl.Mis.No.5918/2017 filed the instant application seeking impleadment of the auction purchaser as an additional respondent No.2 to the proceedings. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner-Bank, the Trial Court proceeded to pass

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:20863 WP No. 9476 of 2024

¶22

the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶23

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the sole ground on which the impleadment application filed by the respondent has been allowed by the Trial Court is by holding that there were proceedings between the respondents and the petitioner-Bank in W.P.No.19381/2021 and since there was a possibility of auction, the auction purchaser deserves to be impleaded as respondent No.2. In this context, it is relevant to state that the aforesaid W.P.No.19381/2021 has been disposed of vide final order dated 04.12.2023. In addition to the same, it is always open for the respondent to settle the dispute amicably with the petitioner and having regard to the scope and ambit of the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which had already attained finality, the question of impleading the auction purchaser at the instance of the respondent would not arise, particularly when the Trial Court has become functus officio upon passing the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has clearly fell in error in allowing

¶24

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20863 WP No. 9476 of 2024

¶25

the application filed by the respondents without appreciating the aforesaid facts and circumstances warranting interference of this Court in the present petition.

¶26

In the result, I pass the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i. The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶29

ii. The impugned order dated 21.02.2024 passed in Crl.Mis.No.5918/2017 passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside.

¶30

iii. The impleadment application dated 22.01.2024 filed by the respondent stands dismissed.

¶31

iv. Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent to approach the petitioner-Bank for amicable settlement.

¶32

v. The Trial Court is directed to pass appropriate orders on the memo dated 06.12.2023 filed by the petitioner after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and respondent and in accordance with law.

¶33

BMC : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

The Janatha Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Kodandaramu R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Janatha Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Mr. Kodandaramu R

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 Kaveramme Agastheswara Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ashraf @ Mahammad Ashraf Vs the Union of India

Karnataka State Hockey Association (Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Selvakumar Vs Mahila Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Smt. Vijayalakshmi. H. a. Vs the Bengaluru City Co. Op Bank Ltd.

Shri Akmal Pasha Vs Home First Finance Company