Disposed¶36

S Nagendrakumar v. the Malleswaram Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2025WP/2909/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition; Articles 226 & 227 Constitution of India; quash e-auction sale notice dated 01.01.2025 Annexure-A; Malleswaram Co Operative Bank Ltd; scheduled mortgage commercial property; W.P.No.15964/2024 order dated 08.11.2024; outstanding loan repayment; One Time Settlement; representation to bank; auction did not take place; prayer infructuous; disposed of; Bengaluru; GM-RES.

What did the court decide?

Permission to submit a representation to the respondent-Bank for consideration of payment of the outstanding loan amount along with interest or a One Time Settlement, if substantial amount is ready with the petitioners for repayment. ¶36

S Nagendrakumar Vs the Malleswaram Co. Operative… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned e-auction sale notice dated 01.01.2025 at Annexure-A issued by the respondent-Bank for the scheduled mortgage commercial property ought to be quashed and possession of the scheduled commercial property returned to the petitioners. +1 more

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are permitted to give a representation to the respondent-Bank for considering payment of the outstanding loan amount along with interest, or to offer a ‘One Time Settlement’ scheme, if substantial amount is available with the petitioners for repayment.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (R Devdas J, 05.02.2025) disposed of Writ Petition No. 2909 of 2025 (GM-RES) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of an e-auction sale notice dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by The Malleswaram Co Operative Bank Ltd for the scheduled mortgage commercial property, and return of possession to the petitioners. Counsel for the Bank submitted the auction scheduled for 05.02.2025 did not take place, rendering the prayer infructuous. In earlier W.P.No.15964/2024, by order dated 08.11.2024, this Court had recorded the petitioners' intention to clear the loan on item No.1, directed payment of the entire outstanding amount within two weeks (stated to be uncomplied with), and by direction No.2 left the Bank free to proceed against item No.2 in accordance with law. Petitioners contended they succeeded in a money-recovery suit against tenants and could now repay with interest. The Court permitted the petitioners to give a representation to the Bank for considering repayment of the outstanding amount with interest or a One Time Settlement, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5215 WP No. 2909 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2909 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S. NAGENDRAKUMAR S/O SACHIDANANDA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶10

SMT. MADHU MANJULA.G W/O S.NAGENDRAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO-46/1 AND 2, SECOND FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-03,

¶11

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

PRESENTLY R/A NO-219, FIRST FLOOR, 10^TH CROSS, 4^TH BLOCK, J.C.NAGAR, III STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALUR-560079.

¶13

(BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE MALLESWARAM CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO-102, 7^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560003, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.K.V.LOKESH., ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5215 WP No. 2909 of 2025

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED THE IMPUGNED E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE DTD. 01.01.2025 AT ANNX-A PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE MORTGAGE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO RETURN THE POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are raising a challenge to the

¶25

“E-Auction Sale Notice” dated 01.01.2025 at Annexure-A.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the auction scheduled today, i.e., on 05.02.2025 could not take place and therefore, the prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous . Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank would further submit that earlier too, the petitioners had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15964/2024 and this Court by order dated 08.11.2024 has recorded the fact that the petitioners have expressed their intention to clear the loan account relating to item No.1 of the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:5215 WP No. 2909 of 2025

¶29

schedule property. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to pay the entire outstanding loan amount due as on that day concerning item No.1 of the schedule property within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. Learned Counsel further submits that the direction given in the said W.P.No.15964/2024 is also not complied by the petitioners.

¶30

However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that the property sought to be auctioned now is not item No.1, but item No.2 property. To this, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank points out to directions No.2 in W.P.No.15964/2024, where this Court has recorded that the respondent-Bank retains the liberty to proceed with respect to the loan account concerning item No.2 of the schedule property in accordance with law.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the petitioners however submits that the petitioners have succeeded in a suit filed for recovery of money from the tenants and the petitioners

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:5215 WP No. 2909 of 2025

¶34

are now in a position to repay the outstanding loan amount along with interest.

¶35

If that is so, the petitioners are permitted to give a representation to the respondent-Bank for considering payment of the outstanding loan amount along with interest or to offer ‘One Time Settlement’ scheme to the petitioners, if substantial amount is ready in the hands of the petitioners for repayment.

¶36

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶37

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶38

CT: JL

¶39

S Nagendrakumar v. the Malleswaram Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Nagendrakumar v. the Malleswaram Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unnikutti Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Perdala Ibrahim Vs State by Lokayukta Police Station

M/S Shaheena Traders Vs the Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

G L Panchaksharaiah Vs the District Registrar

Sri Venkataramana Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Avishkar Innovative Pvt. Ltd., Vs Canara Bank