Disposed¶39

Mr Abdul Majeed v. C.S.B. Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2025WP/5283/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (M.Nagaprasanna J.), WP No. 5283 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided 26-03-2025: petitioners Abdul Majeed, Khairunisa Abdul Majeed and Mohammed Haneef challenged C.S.B. Bank auction sale notice 22.01.2025 (Annexure-A) on outstanding loan of Rs.48,89,614/-; conditional ad-interim stay (20% deposit in four weeks) not complied with; petition disposed with liberty to seek other legal remedies; relevant to enforcement of conditional interim orders and borrower non-compliance in secured-lending sale proceedings.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the auction sale notice was not quashed and the petitioners were left open to avail such remedy as is available in law ¶39

Mr Abdul Majeed Vs C.S.B. Bank Ltd. — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12825 WP No. 5283 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 5283 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR ABDUL MAJEED S/O ABDUL KHADER, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶8

MRS. KHAIRUNISA ABDUL MAJEED, W/O MR. ABDUL MAJEED MAJOR,

¶9

MR.MOHAMMED HANEEF, S/O KHADER@ KADRI KUNHI BYARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶10

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: R/AT NO. 4-17, "BANU MANZIL" BEEJAMAR HOUSE, AMBALAMOGARU, MANGALORE D.K.-574 199.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

C.S.B. BANK LTD., MANGALORE BRANCH, GOD'S GRACE, IMMANUEL, LUCY COMPLEX, NEXT TO MALABAR HILLS, BLAMATTA NEW ROAD, NEAR FALNIR ROAD JUNCTION, MANGALORE-575 001. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER/ CHIEF MANAGER

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. BIBIMOL K CHACKO, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12825 WP No. 5283 of 2025

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE 22.01.2025 BEARING NO. NKRZ/LD/SAR 586/908/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following

¶24

prayer:

¶25

"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the auction sale notice 22.01.2025 bearing No.NKRZ/LD/SAR 586/908/2024-25 issued by the respondent bank vide Annexure-A

¶26

(ii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

¶27

This Court on 24.02.2025 has passed the following

¶28

order :

¶29

" Issue notice to the respondent.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even according to Annexure-A, notice issued by the respondent-Bank, the outstanding loan amount is Rs.48,89,614/- as on 31.12.2024. He would further submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit 20% of the said amount within four weeks. If reasonable time is granted, the petitioners will also repay the entire outstanding amount or seek regularisation of the account or seek OTS.

¶31

Consequently, there shall be an ad-interim order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure- A, the sale notice, till the next date of hearing, subject to the petitioners depositing 20% of Rs.48,89,614/- within a

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12825 WP No. 5283 of 2025

¶33

period of four weeks from today, failing which, the benefit arising out of this order would not enure to the petitioners and the petitioners will run the risk of having the writ petition dismissed.

¶34

Re-list this matter on 26.03.2025."

¶35

The order was very clear that, in the event the

¶36

petitioners would not deposit the amount within four weeks, the interim order would not enure to the petitioners and the petition would be dismissed.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners himself submits that not even a rupee has been able to be paid by the petitioners in pursuance of the interim order.

¶38

In that light, leaving open to the petitioners to avail such

¶39

remedy as is available in law, the Petition stands disposed.

¶40

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Mr Abdul Majeed v. C.S.B. Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Abdul Majeed v. C.S.B. 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

M/S. Aashish Developers Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Premamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T Srinivas Vs Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sriramappa Vs Sri Patheshwaraswamy Bhairaveshwaraswamy Temple

Smt D R Ambika Vs the Manager