Karnataka High Court
M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 January, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
WRIT APPEAL NOs. 3289-3290 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S IDBI BANK LTD
ANANDA ARCADE
MIG, AM DOUBLE ROAD
SARASWATHI PURAM, KUVEMPU NAGARA
MYSORE - 570 403.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED OFFICER
MR.D.BASKER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.LOKESH K.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA - 571 401.
2. M/S.AJ MOTORS, MANDYA
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
2
MR.AJITH B.S.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O B.K.SUBRAMANYA.
MR.JAYANTH.G
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O GYAN PRAKESH
NO.C1 BUILDING
INDUSTRIAL AREA, 1ST STAGE
1ST MAIN, MANDYA - 571 403.
3. DIVAKAR C P
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O LATE G PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
NO.10, 5TH BLOCK, SBM COLONY
MYSORE - 570 023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SREENIDHI, AGA, FOR R-1;
SRI. V.V.GUNJAL, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI.K.B.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-3
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NOs.39152/2016 & 39316/2016 DATED 03.08.2016.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
These appeals are taken up for final hearing by the consent of Mr.Lokesh, K.V, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.V.V.Gunjal, learned advocate for the respondent no.2.
2. On the prayer of Mr.Lokesh, K.V, learned counsel for the appellant and at the risk of the appellant, notice of these appeals to the respondent no.3 is dispensed with.
3. Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned Additional Government Advocate, appears for the respondent no.1.
4. In connection with the writ petition challenging the decision passed under the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Hon'ble Single Judge directed restoration of possession of the property in question in favour of the respondent no.2.
5. The bank is aggrieved and, therefore, these appeals are filed.
4
6. There has been a stay of the operation of the order impugned, directing the bank to restore possession of the property in question to the respondent no.2.
7. However, Mr.V.V.Gunjal, learned advocate for the respondent no.2, submitted that the materials were lying inside the premises and we had permitted the respondent no.2. to take those items back.
8. We are informed jointly by Mr.Lokesh and Mr.Gunjal that the respondent no.2 has removed all the items from the disputed premises.
9. In such a situation, we feel that justice will be sub-served if these appeals are disposed of, requesting the Hon'ble Single Judge to dispose of the matters expeditiously.
10. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, as of today, in relation to the property in dispute. 5
11. The writ appeals are, thus, disposed of.
12. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE vgh*