Shri.G.Malleshappa S/O G. Thimmappa Vs the State Bank of India

SHRI. G. MALLESHAPPA S/O G. THIMMAPPA, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: DOOR NO.18, WARD NO.16, NEAR M. G. OCTROI GATE, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, PATELNAGAR, BALLARI -583101.

¶10

SHRI. G. M. SURESH S/O. G. MALLESHAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: DOOR NO.1/A, NEAR M. G. OCTROI GATE, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, PATELNAGAR, BALLARI -583101.

¶11

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶12

SMT. G. SHARAD W/O G. M. SURESH, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, NEAR M. G. OCTROI GATE, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, PATELNAGAR, BALLARI -583101.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, ST MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU -560001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2725 WP No. 109396 of 2019

¶18

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, RACPC, BALLARI, 1^ST FLOOR, S B M BUILDING, STATION ROAD, BALLARI.

¶19

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PATELNAGAR BRANCH, BALLARI.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT SHARMILA M. PATIL, AND SMT G. B. SHREEDEVI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2, SRI MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4, NOTICE TO R1, R3 & R5 ARE SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO THE NECESSARY ORDER, DIRECTION OR THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED AND THEREBY QUASH THE IMUPGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, I.E., SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY ON 29.03.2019 BEARING IT'S NO. RACPC/EAUCTION DATED 01.04.2019, VIDE ANNEXURE-W. THE NECESSARY ORDER, DIRECTION OR THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS ALSO MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED & THREBY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PUT THE PETITIONERS IN TO THE POSSESSION OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY WHICH IS BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER NO.1, I.E., THE OWNER OF THE OPEN SITE BEARING ITS T.S. NO. 604, WARD NO.16 SITUATED @ PATEL NAGAR, BESIDES ANANTAPUR ROAD, PLOT NO.17, BALLARI, MEASURING 112.3 FEET FROM EAST TO WEST & 92.5 FEET FROM NORTH TO

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2725 WP No. 109396 of 2019

¶24

SOUTH IN TOTAL 10388 Sq. ft BY RECEIVING THE AMOUNT DUE FROM THE PETITIONERS IN INSTALLMENTS. THE NECESSARY ORDER, DIRECTION OR THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS ALSO MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED & THEREBY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO CONFIRM THE SALE & THEREBY ISSUE THE SALE CERTIFICATE & ITS FURTHER ACTION, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶29

following prayer:

¶30

A) The necessary order, direction or the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and thereby quash the imupgned order passed by the respondent no.2, i.e., sale of mortgaged property on 29.03.2019 bearing it's no. RACPC/EAUCTION dated 01.04.2019, vide ANNEXURE-W.

¶31

B) The necessary order, direction or the writ in the nature of mandamus also may kindly be issued & thereby direct the respondents to put the petitioners in to the possession of the mortgaged property which is belonging to the petitioner no.1, i.e., the owner of the open site bearing its T.S. No. 604, ward no.16 situated @ Patel Nagar, besides Anantapur road, plot no.17, Ballari, measuring 112.3 feet from east to west & 92.5 feet from North to South in total 10388 sq. ft by receiving the amount due from the petitioners in installments.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2725 WP No. 109396 of 2019

¶34

C) The necessary order, direction or the writ in the nature of mandamus also may kindly be issued & thereby direct the respondents not to confirm the sale & thereby issue the sale certificate & its further action, in the ends of justice.

¶35

D) Any other relief’s which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Ganapati M. Bhat appearing for petitioners and learned counsel

¶37

Smt.Sharmila M. Patil appearing for respondent No.2 and learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath appearing for respondent No.4.

¶38

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶39

The petitioner is the borrower, borrows funds from the hands respondent-State Bank of India and defaults in payment. The Bank initiates proceedings invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶40

In furtherance of the said proceeding, a sale

¶41

takes place, in which, the properties are sold to auction

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2725 WP No. 109396 of 2019

¶43

and sale certificate is also said to have been issued by the respondent-Bank, later all proceedings concerning the sale of the property, gets concluded. Long thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid prayer on manifold circumstances.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶45

respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner be directed to approach the Bank and take the amount that is payable to the petitioner that lying with the Bank for the last six years. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been notified on plethora of occasions to come and collect the amount and he is not collected the same. Therefore the Bank is not liable to pay any interest on the said amount as it has been lying in the suspense account.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner would dispute

¶47

the position contending that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner to come and collect the amount. It may be that the counsel representing the petitioner was told that

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2725 WP No. 109396 of 2019

¶49

would not be in consonance with law. The

¶50

respondent-Bank has not placed on record any document to show that petitioner has been issued a notice to come and collect the Bank. In that light the petitioner becomes entitled to interest at Bank rates from the date that the amount fell into the account of the Bank till the amount falls into the account of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Sharma vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. And Ors.¹ .

¶51

Therefore I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition without entertaining the prayers at the plea of the petitioner. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of such remedy as available in law, petition stands disposed. There is no impediment with the disposal of the petition.

¶52

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶53

respondent-Bank submits that an amount of more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- is to be returned to the petitioner which is lying in the coffers of the Bank. Therefore, the petitioner

¶54

1 2024 LiveLaw(SC) 1054

¶55