Sri Kantharaju vs Andhra Bank on 31 July, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Kantharaju vs Andhra Bank on 31 July, 2015

Bench: A S Bopanna

                              1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2015

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

        WRIT PETITION NO.1543/2015 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KANTHARAJU
LATE S/O A. SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT: No.170, 10TH CROSS
HEGGANAHALLI
KARIMSAB LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 091.
                                     ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N. SURESHA, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     ANDHRA BANK
       VIDYAPEETHA CIRCLE BRANCH
       KHATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD
       BANGALORE - 560 028.
       REP. BY ITS
       AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

2.     SMT. P. ARUNA
       W/O S. KANTHARAJU
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
       No.170, 10TH CROSS, HEGGANAHALLI
       KARIMSAB LAYOUT
       BANGALORE - 560050.
                               2




3.    SRI. S. THYAGARAJU
      S/O A. SRINIVASAN
      AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
      GOVERNMENT GIRLS COLLEGE
      MALUR - 563130
      KOLAR DISTRICT.
                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADV., FOR R1)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS TO R-1 I.E.,
NOT TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PETITION
SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING :

                         ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 not to take physical possession of the petition schedule property.

2. The petitioner is the borrower in respect of loan. Since the loan had not been repaid, proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 3 Enforcement of the Security in Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) had been initiated by the respondents. The petitioner apprehending that the possession would be taken is before this Court in this petition.

3. This Court by interim order dated 19.01.2015 had restrained the respondent No.1 from taking possession subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within a period of four weeks. The respondents have filed their objection statement and also application seeking that the interim order be vacated. The objection statement and the application would indicate that the interim order passed by this Court has not been complied by the petitioner. If that be the position, the petitioner has not established the bonafides to settle the matter with the respondents if some accommodation is granted by this Court.

4. However, taking note of the fact that this Court at first instance had granted time, though at this juncture the petition cannot be entertained any further and is being disposed of, the petitioner would still have an opportunity of settling the matter with the respondents within a period four weeks from the date of this order. If the petitioner does not in any manner approach the respondent-Bank and settle within the said period of four weeks, the respondent-Bank would be free to proceed further in the matter.

In terms of the above the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE PMR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court