Smt Krishnamma Vs Karnataka Bank Limited

KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED ELECTRONIC CITY BRANCH D-152/5, EK PLAZA ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-I BENGALURU 560100 IFSC -KARB0000963 REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI. A GANESH., ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE E- AUCTION NOTICE DATED 21.12.2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT UNDER THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTREREST ACT 2022, AS PER ANNEXURE - A DULY PROPOSING TO SELL AWAY THE SECURITIZED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY WAY OF E-AUCTION AS THE AME IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST, ERRONEOUS AND ARBITRARY.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:23469 WP No. 1117 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This petition has been filed seeking for setting aside

¶34

of the e-auction notice dated 21.12.2022 issued by the respondent.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has filed a memo.

¶36

The memo is taken on record. It reads as

¶37

follows:-

¶38

"The undersigned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in the above writ petition the petitioner has challenged the Sale Notice dated 21.12.2022 and the same has not been materialized for want of bidders and the sale did not materialized. Hence, the said Writ Petition may be dismissed as infructuous."

¶39

It is submitted that the petitioners have not

¶40

complied with the conditional interim order granted by this Court on 17.01.2023.

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:23469 WP No. 1117 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

In light of the observations made by the Apex

¶45

Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 , it can be noticed that several factual contentions raised by the petitioners are the matters that cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings.

¶46

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off relegating the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy as regards the impugned proceedings. All contentions of both the sides are kept open.

¶47

Needless to state that while considering the aspect of limitation, in the event the proceedings are instituted before the DRT, time spent before this Court may be taken note of appropriately.

¶48

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶49

VGR

Smt Krishnamma v. Karnataka Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Krishnamma v. Karnataka Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Bapuram Purushotham Reddy Vs the Assistant General Manager

Smt Sunitha Appasaheb Nule Vs Veershaiv Co-Op Bank Limited

Harsha .S. Vs the Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank Limited

Mrs. Jayamma Yellappa Vs Central Bank of India

M/S Pavithra Public School Vs M/S Varthana Finance Private Limited

Mahesh N Vs State of Karnataka