Karnataka High Court
Sri. Gopi Raju vs Indian Bank on 18 April, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15465
WP No. 9152 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 9152 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI GOPI RAJU
S/O SRI DHARMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
FLAT NO. C-101, 1ST FLOOR,
JAIN HEIGHTS EAST PARADE'S
KAGGADASAPURA VILLAGE,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 093.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.R.V.ACHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
INDIAN BANK
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI SAM BRANCH,
Location: HIGH INDIAN BANK BUILDING,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1ST FLOOR, NO.110, K.G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHOK K. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 14/12/2024 TO
TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY
UNDER SARFAESI ACT, 2002, DTD 12/01/2021 AS PER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15465
WP No. 9152 of 2024
ANNEXURE- D AND A WHICH IS IMPUGNED HEREIN AND
CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of
the communication dated 14.02.2024, by which the respondent
- bank seeks to take possession of the property.
2. Heard Sri M.R.V.Achar, learned counsel for petitioner
and Sri Ashok K. Naik, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The petitioner is the borrower from the hands of the
respondent - bank. The account becomes sticky. The
petitioner offers that he would clear the loan by one time
settlement. The one time settlement is accepted by the
respondent - bank and in terms of the OTS, Rs.51/- lakhs has
to be paid on or before 25.08.2023. It is an admitted fact that
the petitioner has paid only Rs.6/- lakhs as on 25.08.2023 and
not fulfilled the terms of one time settlement. Therefore, the
respondent bank has initiated proceedings under the provisions
NC: 2024:KHC:15465
of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is
ready and willing to pay Rs.26/- lakhs which according to him,
is the balance amount of one time settlement.
5. Learned counsel for respondent - bank submits that
the offer of the petitioner is not agreeable as the petitioner has
breached the terms of one time settlement as only Rs.6/- lakhs
is paid as against Rs.51/- lakhs.
6. If the petitioner is representing to the bank and clear
the dues, and the bank is willing to accept the one time
settlement, it is for the petitioner, who has breached the terms
of the one time settlement to approach the bank. This Court
would not issue any direction to the respondent - bank to
consider the offer of one time settlement, which has admittedly
lost its efficacy in the light of the breach committed by the
petitioner and would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court
NC: 2024:KHC:15465
in the case of State Bank of India vs. Arvindra Electronics
Private Limited reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1522.
7. In the light of the aforesaid observations, the writ
petition stands disposed. The petitioner is reserved liberty to
knock at the doors of the appropriate fora, in the event of
need.
Ordered accordingly.
I.A.No.1/2024 also stands disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NVJ
