Karnataka High Court
Sri Subramanian Muthuswamy vs The Authorized Officer on 22 August, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.28121/2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI SUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSWAMY
S/O S SUBRAMANIAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A #8/1, 6TH CROSS
SNT ROAD, GUPTA LAYOUT
ULSOOR
BANGALORE-560008 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDHYA U PRABHU, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
IDBI BANK LTD
RETAIL ASSET CENTRE
ASHWINI COMPLEX, NO.326
6TH MAIN, 80 FT ROAD
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560038
2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K V LOKESH, ADV. FOR
M/S. LAW VIBES FOR C/R1
SRI K SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADV.
FOR PROP. APPLICANT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
2
THE PAPER PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN
ANN-K DT.18.6.13, IN INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY NEWS PAPER
DT.14.6.13 & ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO ACCEPT THE
PROPOSAL GIVN BY THE PETITIONER FOR PURCHASE OF HIS
PROPERTY BY CLOSING THE LOAN ACCOUNT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the paper publication dated 18.06.2013 which is impugned at Annexure-K to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to accept the proposal given by the petitioner for purchase of his property by closing the loan account.
2. The fact that respondent No.1-Bank in order to realise the amount outstanding to them and having taken possession of the property had also brought the property bearing No. 3159, Visweshwaraiah Layout, 4th block, Bangalore to sale by the impugned publication. The petitioner while assailing the same had not only contended with regard to the total liabilities indicated therein but was also aggrieved by the reserve price fixed at Rs.23,24,000/-. It was contended that if the property is 3 sold for a lower value, the liquidation of the loan would also get effected. As such, the sale proceedings is to be set aside and re-auction of the property with the appropriate price is to be made is the contention.
3. Notwithstanding the objection put forth by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 who had entered caveat, this Court had by the order dated 11.07.2013 allowed the petitioner to secure a bona fide buyer to the property in question so that the grievance of the petitioner that it is being sold for a lesser value could be redressed. Despite sufficient opportunity, the petitioner had failed to secure a buyer. It is to be noticed that on 20.08.2013 when the petition had been taken up for consideration, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.1 has submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the reserve price was fixed at Rs.23,24,000/-, the property has been ultimately sold for Rs.34,00,000/-. In that view, this Court had indicated that one more opportunity could be availed by the petitioner, if a buyer is secured for the value of Rs.35,00,000/-.
4
4. When the petition is taken up for consideration today, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the purchaser who had earlier indicated that he would purchase has thereafter not shown interest. Hence, in such circumstance, when the very grievance with regard to fixing of the reserve price is allayed in view of the fact that higher price than what could have been secured by the petitioner himself has been secured by respondent No.1, I am of the opinion that the sale proceedings in any event cannot be assailed and as such, the challenge to the notice cannot be sustained.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that with regard to quantification of the exact amount due as on the date of sale is an issue which would have to be considered by respondent No.1.
6. In this regard, if the petitioner makes a representation to respondent No.1-Bank seeking details with regard to the manner in which the amount is quantified, the same shall be furnished by respondent No.1-Bank and the petitioner would be entitled to point 5 out any deficiency or defects in such calculation, if there are, which are also be taken into consideration by the respondents in accordance with the guidelines and the contract entered into between the parties.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
In the nature of disposal of the petition made hereinabove, the application filed by the successful bidder seeking to implead himself would not arise for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms