Karnataka High Court
Canara Bank vs Mrs. Leetha Abraham on 5 June, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23252-DB
WA No. 561 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 561 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. CANARA BANK
ARM BRANCH, C.O. BUILDING
BALMATTA ROAD
MANGALURU - 575 001
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF MANAGER
MR. JALEESH DINAKARAN
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. MRS. LEETHA ABRAHAM
AMBIKA H B W/O MR. ABY ABRAHAM
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
Location: R/AT PAYYAMBALAM
High Court KANNUR, KERALA - 670 001
of Karnataka
2. M/S. INDIAN CANE POWER LIMITED
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI A.S. NIRANJAN
No.627, SRI KALLESHWARA
INDUSTRIES COMPOUND
RMC ROAD, ANEKONDA
DAVANGERE - 577 001
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI AJAY PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR-
RESPONDENT No.1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23252-DB
WA No. 561 of 2024
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07/02/2024
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE
COURT IN WP NO.3738/2024 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr. Shetty Vignesh Shivaram for the
appellant-Bank and learned advocate Mr.Ajay Prabhu for the
respondent-petitioner.
2. The present appeal is preferred seeking to call in question
the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge,
whereby taking note of the fact that sale of the property has taken
place and the Sale Certificate has been issued, the parties were
directed to maintain status quo with regard to the nature of the
property. It is an interim order, while the main petition is pending.
2.1 The writ petition was filed by respondent No.1 herein. The
prayer was to set aside the Sale Certificate dated 29.01.2024
registered by the Sub-Registrar, Madikere in the name of
respondent No.2.
NC: 2024:KHC:23252-DB
3. Facts were inter alia that the petitioner and her husband took
joint finance in the appellant-respondent No.1-Bank to the tune of
Rs.50 lakhs which was secured by mortgaging the land owned by
the petitioner and her family members, admeasuring 39 Acres.
3.1 The loan account was classified as non-performing assets
without intimation to the petitioner. The Bank took measures under
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to
as 'SARFAESI Act'). Notice was issued under the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act. It was stated by the petitioner that physical
possession was not taken by the Bank nor any public notice for
sale was given in the newspaper. However, later the petitioner
received e-auction dated 19.12.2023 about the auction to be held
on 24.01.2024. The case of the petitioner was that the sale
reserve value of the property was shown as Rs.61,50,000/- only
which was too less compared to the market price it could fetch,
which would have been Rs.2,06,70,000/- in the minimum.
3.2 The petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by
filing Securitisation Application No.33 of 2024 on 18.01.2024 and
challenged the sale notice dated 26.12.2023 and further
NC: 2024:KHC:23252-DB
proceedings relating thereto. It appears that in the meantime,
before the said application of the petitioner could be heard by the
Tribunal, the appellant-respondent No.1-Bank conducted auction.
It was stated that the Tribunal adjourned the case though the
factum of auction and the sale confirmation was brought to the
notice of the Tribunal. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the
Sale Certificate and confirmation thereof by filing the writ petition.
4. Learned Single Judge noted the case of the petitioner that
fixation price of the property auctioned and sold was on much lower
side than the market value and that it was shocking as to how the
property was sold by the Bank for a paltry sum of Rs.99 lakhs for
the entire 33 acres. Learned Single Judge granted status quo
regarding nature of property although the sale had taken place and
confirmation was granted.
5. It is true that the original petitioner has filed application
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on the same cause of action
and Securitization Application No.33 of 2024 is pending. The order
impugned in the present appeal is an interim order. Section 18 of
the SARFAESI Act provides for further remedy of appeal to the
Appellate Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:23252-DB
6. In view of the above circumstances and that the order
impugned is an interim order, the Court is not inclined to entertain
the appeal.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory
applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed
of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AHB
