Disposed

Mrs Bhavani v. Bhatat Co. Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd.

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024WP/974/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition challenging a bank's notice for taking possession of property, the High Court dismissed the matter without deciding on merits. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within 6 weeks and quashed the proceeding while reserving liberty.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned intimation and notice. Directed petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within 6 weeks.

Mrs Bhavani Vs Bhatat Co. Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19341 WP No. 974 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.974 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. BHAVANI W/O. MR. V. BHARATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A KALLAGUDDE MACHINA POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 224.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK (MUMBAI) LTD., MULTI STATE SCHEDULE BANK REP. BY MURALIDHAR KOTIAN CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER VASUKI TOWER, NEXT TO VISHWAS COMMERCIAL BUILDING, NEAR TALUK OFFICE OPP. DISTRICT COURT UDUPI-576 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI H. R. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE NOTICE REF.NO.BCB/UDPL/LEGAL AND RECOVERY 666/2023 DTD 05.01.2023 TAKING POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ON 17.01.2023 AT 2.30 P.M THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTIES VIDE ANNX-A.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:19341 WP No. 974 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned intimation at Annexure – A dated 05.01.2023 and for other reliefs.

¶20

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

¶21

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claim, having regard to availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act’) before the DRT, 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 of the petitioner to file an appeal before the Jurisdictional DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within a period of 6 weeks from today. It is directed that in the event, the petitioner files such an appeal within the aforesaid period of 6 weeks, petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. So also, the interim order dated 13.01.2023

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:19341 WP No. 974 of 2023

¶24

which has been complied with by the petitioner shall continue to remain in force and operate between the parties for a period of 6 weeks from today.

¶25

Subject to the aforesaid directions and reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner, petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Mrs Bhavani v. Bhatat Co. Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Bhavani v. Bhatat Co. Operative Bank (Mumbai) 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 Snnap Design Tech LLP. Vs Union of India

Mr a N Thammannegowda Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Smt Vijayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Shivappa Yalival Vs State of Karnataka

Iranagouda Puttappa Puttappanavar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gururaj Bhimsen Kulkarni Vs Canara Bank