Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Gouramma And Anr vs Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 2 September, 2022

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

       WRIT PETITION No.202016/2022 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

1.     GOURAMMA W/O HANUMANTAPPA
       AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
       R/O CORPORATION NO.1-949/11/128,
       PLOT NO.128, SY.NO.11,
       DARIAPUR AMBIKAPUR,
       KALABURAGI-585102

2.     HANUMANTAPPA S/O MALLAPPA SAVOOR
       AGE: 72 YEARS,
       OCC. RETD. HEAD MASTER,
       R/O CORPORATION NO.1-949/11/128,
       PLOT NO.128, SY.NO.11
       DARIAPUR AMBIKAKPUR,
       KALABURAGI-585102
                                       ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANVEERAPPA NAGANNA SWADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       KALABURAGI-585102

2.     BRANCH MANAGER
       SYNDICATE BANK
       (NOW CANARA BANK)
       SVP CHOWK, STATION BAZAAR,
       KALABURAGI-585102
                             2




3.   DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
     S.B. TEMPLE ROAD,
     KALABURAGI-585102
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1;
 SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 06.07.2022 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the auction sale notice dated 06.07.2022 issued by respondent No.3-Bank produced at Annexure-F for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,50,000/-.

2. This Court granted interim order on 11.08.2022 which reads as under:

"Heard.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.1.
3
Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to serve copies of the writ petition on the respective counsels.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the impugned notice at Annexure-F, a sum of Rs.6,16,232.53/- is due from the petitioners. If the respondents grant some time, the petitioners are ready to settle the entire due amount without any litigation.
In view of the above, stay of Annexure-F dated 06.07.2022, subject to the petitioners depositing Rs.3,00,000/- before respondent No.2 within three weeks from today."

3. After service of notice, respondent-Bank appeared through its counsel and filed vacating application contending that as per the sale notice produced at Annexure-F, the due amount is Rs.26,50,000/-. The petitioners have suppressed the same and obtained the 4 interim order. Till today, the petitioners have not deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as per the direction of this Court. He further contended that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notice, they have remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

4. This Court has entertained the writ petition and granted interim order only on the ground that learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amount due is Rs.6,16,232.53/- and the petitioners are ready to settle the amount due without any litigation.

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that as on the date of issuance of Annexure-F, the due amount is Rs.26,50,000/- and the petitioners have not deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as per the interim order granted by this Court. Under the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief at the hands of this Court.

6. If the petitioners have any grievance with regard to issuance of impugned notice (Annexure-F), they 5 have remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*