Dismissed¶32

M/S. Home Plus Enterprises v. the Authorized Officer

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2025WP/17180/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Canara Bank recovery notice dated 06.08.2022 challenged under Articles 226/227 by M/s. Home Plus Enterprises and Mrs. Naseema K before the Authorized Officer and Recovery Officer, Canara Bank, Bunder Branch, Mangaluru; interim stay of 01.09.2022 conditional on payment of 30% of the amount in demand not complied with; no stay of recovery in force; writ petition dismissed (NC: 2025:KHC:31693; GM-RES; decided 14.08.2025).

What did the court decide?

Since the conditions for grant of the interim order dated 01.09.2022 were not complied with by the petitioners, no stay of recovery is in force. ¶30

M/S. Home Plus Enterprises Vs the Authorized… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31693 WP No. 17180 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WRIT PETITION NO. 17180 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. HOME PLUS ENTERPRISES DOOR NO. 3-326, GROUND FLOOR, PLAMA CASTLE, BAJPE, MANGALURU-574 142, MANUFACTURING BAGS AND OTHER LEATHER ITEMS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. MAHAMMED ALI, S/O. MR. T. M. IDDINABBA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR M/S. HOME PLUS ENTERPRISES, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.2-29, MUSHFIQ MANZIL, ILLENJARU, KUPPEPADAVU, MANGALURU-574 144.

¶12

MRS. NASEEMA. K W/O. MR. MOHAMMED ALI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PROPRIETOR M/S. ARFA ENTERPRISES, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 2-29, MUSHFIQ MANZIL, ILLENJARU, KUPPEPADAVU, MANGALURU-574 144.

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31693 WP No. 17180 of 2022

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND RECOVERY OFFICER, CANARA BANK, BUNDER BRANCH, MANGALURU-575 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SMT.PREETHI.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM.,ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE NOTICE DTD 06.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that an

¶26

interim order was granted on 01.09.2022 staying the further proceedings subject to payment of 30% of the amount in demand.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31693 WP No. 17180 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The said order has not been complied with by the petitioners.

¶30

In view of the fact that the writ petition is filed on 23.08.2022 and since the conditions for grant of interim dated 01.09.2022 have not been complied with, no stay of recovery is in force.

¶31

In the above view of the matter and in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that interim order has not been complied with, I am of the view that nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.

¶32

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶33

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶34

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

M/S. Home Plus Enterprises v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Home Plus Enterprises v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nataraj K Vs Pooja K

M/S. Fourses Foods Vs M/S. Karnataka Bank Limited

Mr. C. Jayagopal Vs Sree Charan Souhardha Sahakara Bank Niyamitha

Lily Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs Umesh K Patel

Mr K K Sharfuddin Vs the State of Karnataka

The Authorized Claim Settle Manager Vs Smt Geethamma