M/S Svb Borewells vs Chief Manager And Authorised Officer on 5 December, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Svb Borewells vs Chief Manager And Authorised Officer on 5 December, 2018

Bench: B.Veerappa

                          1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

                       BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

         WRIT PETITION NO.58124/2017(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S. SVB BOREWELLS
M.B.No.9/7/680/913
KANTWESA SWAMI NILAYA
MAHANTAIAH MUTT ROAD
OPP.BTP B.T. PATIL NAGAR
KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT 583 231

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. VEERABASAPPA NAREGAL
                                    ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

CHIEF MANAGER AND
AUTHORISED OFFICER
KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED
REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE
NEAR MAHAVEERA CIRCLE,
KANKANADY,
MANGALURU 575 002.
                                    ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.Y.V.PARTHASARATHY ADVOCATE)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
                              2



SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE FOR SALE OF THE
IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES (UNDER SARFAESI ACT 2002)
DATED 14.11.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO TO
RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT-BANK NOT TO DISPOSSESS
THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES FROM ITS OWNER SRI
VEERABASAPPA WHO IS THE PROPRIETOR OF THE
PETITIONER FIRM, TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT BANK
FROM FURTHER PROCEEDING AGAINST THE SCHEDULE
PROPERTIES OF THIS PETITIONER UNDER SARFAESI ACT
AND ALSO TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO SETTLE THE DUES
TO REDEEM THEIR PROPERTIES.

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


                         ORDER

Heard.

Learned counsel for respondent raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of present writ petition.

2. This Court, by an order dated 21.12.2017 granted Stay of the confirmation of the sale, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount as per Annexure-A within a period of four weeks, failing which, the interim order shall stands vacated. 3

3. When the matter came up for consideration on 27.11.2018, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the interim order granted by this Court subject to condition that petitioner shall deposit 50% of the amount due is not complied with. Petitioner has failed to comply with the interim order and even today. He submitted that, the writ petition is not maintainable and that is how, the matter is posted today for disposal.

4. Sri. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has not complied with the interim order granted by this Court and in view of the above, the interim order granted by this Court automatically stands vacated. Therefore, he seeks permission to file an appeal before the appellate authority as contemplated under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

5. The said submission is placed on record. 4

6. The writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority as contemplated in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE tsn*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court