Karnataka High Court
M/S Ittina Properties Pvt Ltd vs Punjab National Bank on 22 August, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.48084/2011 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
M/s. Ittina Properties Private Limited
A Private Limited Company incorporated
Under the Companies Act, 1956
Having its offices at :
No.380, Ittina Centre, 16th Main
3rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-34
Rep by one of its Director
Sri Manu Ittina. ..Petitioner
(By Sri S. Sriranga & Sumana Naganand, Advs.,
for M/s. Just Law )
AND :
1. Punjab National Bank
A Body Corporate under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition &
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970
Having its Head Office at
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi
And Branch Office at Bangalore
City Branch, I Floor
"Vokkaligara Bhavana"
Hudson Circle, Bangalore-560027
2
Rep by its Branch Manager.
2. Authorised Officer and Chief Manager
Punjab National Bank
Asset Recovery Management Branch
Raheja Towers, 26-27, M.G. Road
Bangalore-560001. ..Respondents
(By Sri K.V. Satish & S.R. Harishkumar, Advs.,)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order of
the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 18.10.2011 in
S.A.No.469/2011 vide Annexure-AC.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 18.10.2011 passed in S.A. No.469/2011 vide Annexure-AC by which the petitioner's prayer for staying the auction notification is rejected. Petitioner has also sought for direction to quash the auction sale conducted by the respondents dated 16.12.2011 pursuant to the communication letter dated 12.11.2011 vide Annexure-AE. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. 3
2. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned advocates on record that though the auction took place as scheduled, the auction purchaser did not come forward to deposit the sale consideration. Hence the sale proceedings have virtually become redundant. The secured property is with the respondent - bank inasmuch as it has taken possession of the same under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act"
for short). Now, the matter is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
3. During the pendency of this matter, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.67,05,521/- with the respondent
- bank in terms of the order dated 21.12.2011 in addition to a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- already deposited by the petitioner with the respondent - bank. Thus the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.82,05,521=00. From the above, it is clear that the entire amount as demanded 4 by the respondent bank as on the date of the auction sale is satisfied. However, the Memo dated 17.1.2012 filed by the respondent - bank states that still an amount of Rs.7,35,720/- was outstanding as on 12.1.2012. The respondent has annexed a certified statement of account showing the aforementioned outstanding amount as on 12.1.2012. The petitioner disputes the correctness of such account. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would deposit the said amount of Rs.7,35,720/- under protest with the bank and that the bank may be directed to hand over possession in favour of the petitioner after receipt of the amount.
Sri Satish, learned counsel for the respondent - bank submits that the petitioner is liable to pay additional sums of money in addition to Rs.7,35,720/- from 12.1.2012 till this date and the same would be made known to the petitioner if the petitioner so chooses.
5
Be that as it may, having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending before this Court. Since the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.82,05,521/- already and as he is ready to deposit an additional amount of Rs.7,35,720/- with the bank under protest, the secured property belonging to the petitioner needs to be returned to the petitioner. It is needless to observe that the Debt Recovery Tribunal will adjudicate as to how much amount the petitioner is still due to pay to the respondent - bank from the date of publication of the auction notice till disposal. The parties are bound by the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The amount of Rs.7,35,720/- to be deposited by the petitioner would be subject to the decision of the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Accordingly, the following order is made:
6
The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.7,35,720/- (Rupees seven lakhs thirty-five thousand seven hundred and twenty only) with the 1st respondent - bank at an early date under protest and such deposit will be subject to result of the dispute before Debt Recovery Tribunal. Immediately after depositing of such amount, the secured property belonging to the petitioner shall be returned to the petitioner by the respondent - bank. The Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to adjudicate as to how much amount the petitioner is still due from the date of the impugned auction notification.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/nk-