Karnataka High Court
Nbt Zameer vs Canara Bank on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A.No.373/2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NBT Zameer,
S/o late N.B.Babu Sab,
Aged about 72 years,
R/at NBT Mansion,
Beside Traffic Police Station,
Room No.2, Beside NBT Hall,
Chitradurga - 577 502.
2. Ayesha Misba,
W/o Mudussar Nazar,
Aged about 36 years,
Beside Traffic Police Station,
Davanagere Road,
Chitradurga - 577 502.
3. N.B.Mudassar Nazar,
S/o NBT Zameer,
Aged about 41 years,
Beside Traffic Police Station,
Davanagere Road,
Chitradurga - 577 502.
4. N.B.Saddam Nawaz,
S/o NBT Zameer,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at NBT Mansion,
Beside Traffic Police Station,
2
Davanagere Road,
Chitradurga - 577 502. ...APPELLANTS
(By Sri Rajeswara.P.N., Adv.)
AND:
1. Canara Bank,
Rep. by its Authorised Officer,
Chitradurga,
Holalkere Road Branch,
Kanaka Circle,
Near Balaji Bakery,
Holalkere,
Chitradurga - 577 502.
2. The Assistant General
Manager, Canara Bank,
Anjaneya Badavane,
Davanagere - 577 005.
3. The Managing Director,
Canara Bank,
J.C.Road, No.112,
Bangalore - 560 006.
4. The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Holalkere Road Branch,
Kanaka Circle,
Near Balaji Bakery,
Holalkere Road,
Chitradurga - 577 501. ...RESPONDENTS
(By H.S.Rukkoji Roa, Adv. for C/R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 09.03.2022 IN W.P.No.12693/2021 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal emanates from the order dated
09.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which,
the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been
disposed of.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly
stated are, that the appellants had taken a loan from the
respondent-Bank. The appellants did not repay the loan
amount, thereupon their property was put to sale. Appellants
challenged the sale notice dated 23.06.2021 in the writ
petition and also sought for a writ of mandamus to the
respondent-Bank to consider the representation dated
03.04.2021 submitted by appellant no.1.
3. The reliefs claimed in the writ petition are as under:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the
sale notice dated 23.06.2021 vide Annexure-H & J
issued by the respondent bank in respect of
schedule property.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent to consider the representation dated
03.04.2021 produced at Annexure-G given by
petitioner no.1.
c) Such further and other reliefs as this
Hon'ble Tribunal may consider fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at
length.
5. It is not in dispute that no sale has taken place
pursuant to the sale notice dated 23.06.2021. Therefore, the
challenge to the sale notice has been rendered academic on
account of efflux of time. It is also not in dispute that the
learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition and has
granted the mandamus in favour of the appellants to consider
the representation dated 03.04.2021 submitted by appellant
no.1.
6. In our considered opinion, the appellants cannot be
said to be the persons aggrieved by the order dated
09.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge as the relief
as claimed by the appellants has been granted by the learned
Single Judge. Needless to state that in case the appellants
have any cause of action based on subsequent events, they
would be at liberty to approach the forum which may be
available in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
SD/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
JUDGE
KK
