Smt Lakshmamma vs Phoenix Arc Pvt Ltd on 17 March, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Lakshmamma vs Phoenix Arc Pvt Ltd on 17 March, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1077

Bench: R. Devdas

                           -1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

     WRIT PETITION No.6187 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:

Smt. Lakshmamma
W/o. Late Bayyareddy
C/o. Vijay Gopal
Aged 63 years
No.125, 2nd Main Road
Bharathi Layout
S G Palya, DRC Post
Bengaluru-560029
                                             ...Petitioner
(By Smt. Sandhya U Prabhu, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd
       Represented by its Authorized Officer
       Dani Corporate Park
       5th Floor, 158, C.S.T.Road
       Kalina, Santacruz (E)
       Mumbai-400098

2.     M/s. SLV Hotels
       No.45, 17th Main Road
       4th Block, Koramangala
       Bengaluru-560034
       Represented by its Managing Partner
       Sri. K.C.Muralikrishna
                             -2-




3.     Sri. K.C.Muralikrishna
       S/o. Chinnappaswamy
       Aged 50 years
       Residing at: No.3, 80 feet Road
       8th Block, Koramangala
       Bengaluru-560065

4.     Mrs. Prathima M K
       W/o. K.C.Muralikrishna
       Aged 38 years
       Residing at: No.3, 80 feet Road
       8th Block, Koramangala
       Bengaluru-560065
                                           ...Respondents

     (By Sri. B.C.Avinash, Advocate for C/R1)

       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
sale notice dated 5.2.2020 vide Annexure-N published
in the New Indian Express newspaper daily and etc.


       This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:

                             ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The prayer in this petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the sale notice dated 05.02.2020 at Annexure-N issued by the first respondent-Company -3- under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction Of Financial Assets and Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

2. Admittedly, the sale in terms of the sale notice has taken place on 16.03.2020. Therefore, the main prayer of the petitioner has become infructuous.

3. As regards the second prayer made by the petitioner to direct the first respondent to proceed against the property belonging to the borrower first and thereafter proceed against the property of the petitioner, who is a guarantor, has also become infructuous, by virtue of the fact that the sale of the petitioner's property has already taken place.

4. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has identified a purchaser, who is ready and willing to purchase the property belonging to the petitioner, for market value, -4- which will be more than what the person who has bid in the auction, by virtue of the sale notice, which would be in the interest of the first respondent also.

5. The learned counsel submits that the purchaser is none other than the daughter-in-law of the petitioner who has come forward to protect the interest of the petitioner and save the property. It is prayed that a direction may be issued to the first respondent- Company to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her offer.

6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner will be in the interest of not only the petitioner but, also of the first respondent-Company. There is no harm in the first respondent-Company considering the offer that will be made by the petitioner through her daughter-in-law. At the same time, an opportunity should also be given to the successful -5- bidder to match the offer that is would be by the petitioner's daughter-in-law.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE RB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court