Dismissed¶29

Manjanna a v. Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2025WP/9172/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 9172 of 2025 (GM-RES); decided 08-07-2025 by Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav. Petitioners Manjanna A and Smt. Pushpalatha vs Can Fin Homes Ltd. Writ petition challenging possession notice dated 7.03.2025 under Section 13(4) of the SARFASI Act 2002 demanding Rs. 19,58,086/- was withdrawn after settlement with the bank; dismissed as not calling for adjudication. Memo filed by counsel Sri Srikanth N.V; respondent represented by Sri K.V. Lokesh.

What did the court decide?

In light of the memo filed by counsel for the petitioners recording settlement with the respondent bank and seeking leave to withdraw, the writ petition is dismissed as not calling for adjudication. ¶29

Manjanna a Vs Can Fin Homes Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24816 WP No. 9172 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 9172 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJANNA A, C/O AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. PUSHPALATHA W/O MANJANNA A., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH APPLICANTS ARE R/A NO. 11/35, 2ND CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, KEREPALYA, HOSKEREHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

CAN FIN HOMES LTD., REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE AT #29/1, III FLOOR, SIR M.N. KRISHNA RAO ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004. HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT NO. 69, (OLD NO. 35), 12TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:24816 WP No. 9172 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 7.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK THEREBY DEMANDING A SUM OF RS. 19,58,086/- UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE SARFASI ACT 2002 AS PER ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners files a memo, which

¶27

reads as follows:

¶28

"The counsel appearing for the petitioners humbly submits that as per the instructions obtained by the petitioners are seeking leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above writ petition. Since the petitioners have settled the matter with the respondent bank and clear the balance amount which is payable to the respondent. Hence the same may kindly be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity."

¶29

In light of the same, petition is dismissed as not

¶30

calling for adjudication.

¶31

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶32

VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 135 CT: BHK

Manjanna a v. Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjanna a v. Can Fin Homes Ltd.

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

Nadeemulla Shariff N Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Shilpa T R Vs the Chif Manager

M/S Simin Trading Company Vs M/S Union Bank of India

K. Lokesh, Vs National Highways Authority of India

Sri Suhail Ahmed Baig Vs the Chairman

M/S Sri Guru Transport Vs the State of Karnataka