Karnataka High Court
Smt M Shanthakumari vs Indian Bank on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
WA No. 1173 of 2022
& W.A.No.1255 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1173 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
AND
WRIT APPEAL No.1255 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
IN WRIT APPEAL No.1173 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT M SHANTHAKUMARI
W/O SRI G SHIVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO. 3/C, 14 TH MAIN ROAD
VIJAYNAGAR
BENGALURU 560 040
2. SRI G SHIVARAJ
S/O SRI GURUPADAIAH
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
by K P SWETHA
R/AT NO. 3/E, 14TH MAIN ROAD
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
VIJAYANAGAR
KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560040
3. M/S SURAJ ENTERPRISES
REPTD BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR
SRI G SHIVARAJ
NO. 324/1, GROUND FLOOR
BEHIND VISHWAS LODGE
TVS CROSS, PEENYA Ist STAGE
BENGALURU 560058
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI DANAPPA PRADHANAPPA PANIBHATE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
WA No. 1173 of 2022
& W.A.No.1255 of 2022
AND:
1. INDIAN BANK
NATIONALISED BANK UNDER RBI
REPTD BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
NEW TIMBER YARD LAYOUT BRANCH
NEW GUDDADAHALLI
BENGALURU 560 026
2. INDIAN BANK
NATIONALISED BANK UNDER RBI
REPTD BY ITS CENTRAL MANAGER
RECOVERY DEPARTMENT
ZONAL OFFICE, RAHEJA TOWERS
BENGALURU 560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CAPTAIN ASHOK NAIK, ADVOCATE)
IN WRIT APPEAL No.1255 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT M SHANTHAKUMARI
W/O SRI G SHIVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO. 3/C, 14 TH MAIN ROAD
VIJAYNAGAR
BENGALURU 560 040
2. SRI G SHIVARAJ
S/O SRI GURUPADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO. 3/E, 14th MAIN ROAD
VIJAYNAGAR
BENGALURU 560040
3. M/S SURAJ ENTERPRISES
REPTD BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR
SRI G SHIVARAJ
NO. 324/1, GROUND FLOOR
BEHIND VISHWAS LODGE
-3-
WA No. 1173 of 2022
& W.A.No.1255 of 2022
TVS CROSS, PEENYA Ist STAGE
BENGALURU 560058
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI DANAPPA PRADHANAPPA PANIBHATE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. INDIAN BANK
NATIONALISED BANK UNDER RBI
REP BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
NEW TIMBER YARD LAYOUT BRANCH
NEW GUDDADAHALLI
BENGALURU 5600 26
2. INDIAN BANK
NATIONALISED BANK UNDER RBI
REPTD BY ITS CENTRAL MANAGER
RECOVERY DEPARTMENT
ZONAL OFFICE, RAHEJA TOWERS
BENGALURU 560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CAPTAIN ASHOK NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED
17.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU IN
W.P.NO.16070/2022 C/W W.P.NO.12788/2022 AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
WA No. 1173 of 2022
& W.A.No.1255 of 2022
JUDGMENT
These writ appeals are directed against the order dated
17.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by which,
W.P.No.16070/2022 c/w W.P.No.12788/2022 were dismissed
for non-compliance of the order dated 17.10.2022.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
by the order dated 18.08.2022, the Bank was called upon to
produce the loan documents and as the same were not
produced, the appellants were unable to take any further steps.
He submits that there was no opportunity granted to the
appellants and therefore, the dismissal of the writ petitions is
unsustainable.
3. A perusal of the material placed on record shows
that the appellants have challenged the notices dated
13.01.2022, 22.03.2022 and 02.06.2022 issued by respondent-
Bank in the aforesaid writ petitions. On 29.06.2022, the
learned Single Judge passed an interim order in favour of the
appellants on the condition that they shall deposit
Rs.25,00,000/- within two weeks. However, the appellants
have not deposited the said amount. Instead, they filed
WA No. 1173 of 2022
& W.A.No.1255 of 2022
I.A.No.1/2022 seeking variation of the interim order. The
learned Single Judge, by the order dated 18.08.2022, rejected
I.A.No.1/2022 since no grounds were shown and further
directed the office to list the matter after three weeks to enable
the Bank to produce the loan documents. Accordingly, the
matter was listed on 17.10.2022 and the following order was
passed by the learned Single Judge:-
"Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that if two weeks time is granted they
would pay the entire amount that is outstanding
and seek resumption of the property that is now
put for sale.
Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank would
contend that the sale has already taken place
and sale certificate is yet to be issued.
Therefore, it is for the petitioners and the
respondent/Bank to set across and determine
the amount and its payment by the next date of
hearing.
In the event, the total outstanding is not paid by
the next date of hearing, the petitions would be
dismissed without any further arguments."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. As there was no compliance of the order dated
17.10.2022, the writ petitions stood dismissed.
WA No. 1173 of 2022
& W.A.No.1255 of 2022
5. We are surprised about the conduct of the
appellants. When the matter was listed before the learned
Single Judge on 17.10.2022, the learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that if two weeks' time is granted, the
appellants would pay the entire amount that is outstanding and
seek resumption of the property that is now put up for sale.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to give an
opportunity to the appellants and observed that the appellants
and the Bank and may sit across and determine the amount
and its payment by the next date of hearing. It was further
observed that in the event, the total outstanding amount is not
paid by the next date of hearing, the petitions would be
dismissed without any further arguments. When the appellants
themselves have made a statement before the learned Single
Judge on 17.10.2022 that they are ready to pay the entire
amount that is outstanding and seek resumption of the
property that is now put for sale, there was no question for the
appellants to wait for the production of documents/details by
the Bank as directed on 18.08.2022. The appellants should
have shown their bona fides by depositing the outstanding
amount which they had assured to the Court within the
WA No. 1173 of 2022
& W.A.No.1255 of 2022
stipulated period and could have approached this Court
thereafter. However, without depositing a single pie, the
appellants waited for the Bank to give all the details. The
learned Single Judge has in fact granted two opportunities to
the appellant by the orders dated 29.06.2022 and 17.10.2022.
However, the contention of the appellants is that the writ
petitions were dismissed without giving any opportunity to
them. This expectation only shows either casual approach or
audacity of the appellants. We are forced to say that the
appellants have taken the orders of this Court very lightly and
have now filed this appeal taking a bold and audacious stand
that no opportunity was given to them. It is also not in dispute
that already third party interest has been created in respect of
the subject property.
6. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we are
of the opinion that these writ appeals are devoid of any merits
and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same are
dismissed.
WA No. 1173 of 2022
& W.A.No.1255 of 2022
7. In view of dismissal of these appeals, the pending
interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and
are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KPS
