Sri. Nithin a Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Nithin a Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the petition was disposed off as it did not survive for consideration; the impugned order was not quashed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.6394/2022, permitting the respondent-Bank to take possession, should be quashed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners having vacated the premises, the present petition does not survive for consideration; the petition is disposed off, taking note of the memo filed by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank regarding the tenants having handed over possession.

Key takeaways

In view of the disposal of the petition, the interlocutory applications would not survive and stand disposed of as not calling for adjudication.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 8095 of 2023 (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 11 July 2025 by S Sunil Dutt Yadav J. Four tenants-petitioners challenged, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.6394/2022 (Annexure-A) permitting respondent M/s Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited (NBFC) to take possession. When the petition came on for orders, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank filed a memo recording that the property had been sold through E-auction with the Sale Certificate issued on 27.11.2024, and that the petitioners had vacated their premises and handed over physical possession to the auction purchaser; letters of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and of Sri Nagraju (husband of petitioner No.4) were placed on record, and a memo confirmed petitioner No.3 had also vacated. Held: the petition does not survive for consideration and is disposed off, taking note of the Bank's memo regarding the tenants handing over possession; consequently the interlocutory applications also do not survive and stand disposed of as not calling for adjudication.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25409 WP No. 8095 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION NO. 8095 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NITHIN A S/O ANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NO.4/13, GROUND FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS, 9^TH MAIN, NEAR VINAYAKA HAIR STYLE, HANGASANDRA, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 068

Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. SRINIVASA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS GURGANJI GURKI VILLAGE, THYAVANAHALLI POST, VAKKALERI HOBLI KOLAR DISTRICT-563 133

SMT. RADHA R W/O RAVI R AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT BASAPANADODDI VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJA NAGARA DISTRICT KOLLEGALA TALUK-571 440

SMT. M.S SUDHA W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS LAKSHMIPURA GRAMA, NARAGALLU POST,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25409 WP No. 8095 of 2023

HC-KAR

ANDANAGERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISRICT-572 214

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. BHARGAV G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT MUNICIPAL NO.45, PRESTIGE LIBRA, 2^ND FLOOR, ABOVE PASSPORT OFFICE, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027 NON BANKING FINANCIAL CO(NBFC)

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 30.01.2023 PASSED BY THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU IN CRL. MISC NO.6394/2022 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25409 WP No. 8095 of 2023

HC-KAR

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

ORAL ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the tenants challenging the order dated 30.01.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.6394/2022 at Annexure-A which order has permitted the respondent-Bank to take possession.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has

filed a memo and stated that the property has been sold through E-auction and Sale Certificate has been issued on 27.11.2024. In the interregnum, the petitioners have vacated their premises and the physical possession was handed over to the auction purchaser along with the Sale Certificate, letters given by the petitioners-tenants are enclosed.

The memo produced along with the letters of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and a letter by Sri Nagraju, who is the husband of petitioner No.4 is placed on record. Insofar as submission that petitioner No.3 has vacated the

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25409 WP No. 8095 of 2023

HC-KAR

premises; memo to that effect has been filed on behalf of the Bank.

In light of the same, petitioners having vacated

the premises, the present petition does not survive for consideration and the petition is disposed off, taking note

of the memo filed by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank regarding tenants having handed over the possession.

In view of disposal of the petition, the

interlocutory applications would not survive and stands accordingly disposed off as not calling for adjudication.

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

CR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2