Karnataka High Court
Parappa S/O. Siddappa Myageri vs The District Magistrate And Deputy ... on 25 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8547
WP No. 147813 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.147813 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
PARAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA MYAGERI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETD.,
R/O: PLOT NO.29, HEBBALLIYAVAR PLOT,
NEAR IRRIGATION DEPT. COLONY,
NAVALGUND, DIST : DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE &
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD DISTRICT,
DHARWAD-580 001.
2. THE TAHASILDAR,
NAVALAGUND TALUK,
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
NAVALAGUND-582 208,
MALAGALADINNI
DIST: DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER,
Date: 2024.06.28 13:27:25
+0530
BANK OF BARODA (E-VIJAYA BANK),
REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI BRANCH
BELLARD TOWER, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580030.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING
NO.SARFAESI/16538/2020-21 DATED 13.09.2020 PASSED BY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8547
WP No. 147813 of 2020
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B; ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BANK TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER
REQUEST FOR ONETIME SETTLEMENT AND TO AFFORD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO SETTLE THE DUES.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the order
dated 13.09.2020 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 14
of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as
the 'SARFAESI' Act for brevity). This Court was pleased to grant
interim order on 16.09.2020 and the proceedings were stayed
subject to petitioner depositing Rs.2,00,000/-.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and
respondents.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner pleads his
inability to secure instructions from his client.
4. Be that as it may, the recovery proceedings are
stalled since 2020 and respondent No.3/secured creditor is left
remediless on account of intervention by this Court in granting
interim stay. This Court taking lenient view, provided a
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8547
breather to petitioner to discharge the outstanding debt. The
petitioner has not availed the opportunity granted by this Court
and there is absolutely no inclination to discharge the debt.
5. This Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence in
the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. The Division
Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.1305/2021 disposed on
23.12.2021, while taking cognizance of judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Virupaksha and
another Vs. State of Karnataka1 has held that the SARFAESI
Act is complete code in itself which provides procedure to be
followed by the secured creditor. The Division Bench further
held that the SARFAESI Act also contemplates remedy for a
borrower. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Virupaksha
(cited supra) taking note of the authority vested with DRT
under sub-section (3) in Section 17 has held that the
Legislature by including sub-section (3) in Section 17 has gone
to the extent of vesting the DRT with authority to even set-
aside a transaction including sale and to restore possession to
the borrower in appropriate cases. Therefore, the Apex Court
has come down heavily on High Courts entertaining writ
(2020) 4 SCC 440
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8547
petitions questioning the orders passed under the provisions of
SARFAESI Act, which squarely fall within the domain of DRT.
The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment
cited supra followed by the Division Bench, binds on this Court.
The e-auction that is proposed to be held pursuant to the
provisions of SARFAESI Act also squarely fall within the domain
of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the petitioner
could not have knocked the doors of writ Courts assailing the
proposed auction to be conducted by the respondent-bank.
6. Since, petitioner has deposited Rs.2,00,000/-
before this Court, by way of final indulgence, finally three
months time is granted to clear the outstanding dues with
interest. The petitioner could not have knocked the doors of
this Court assailing the orders passed under SARFAESI Act. For
the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
ii) The interim protection granted by this Court
shall remain in force for a period of three
months. In the event, petitioner fails to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8547
repay the balance amount with accrued
interest, it is open for the respondents to
take precipitate actions as contemplated
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
iii) The amount deposited before this Court shall
be refunded to respondent No.3/Bank along
with accrued interest after securing proper
identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
