Karnataka High Court
Giriraj S/O Virupakshappa ... vs The Authorised Officer on 16 October, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997
WP No. 105880 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 105880 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. GIRIRAJ S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA GIREPPANNAVAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. SHINDIHATTI VILLAGE, HIDAKAL DAM POST,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI-591107.
2. ANNAPURNA W/O. GIRIRAJ GIREPPANNAVAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. SHINDIHATTI VILLAGE, HIDAKAL DAM POST,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI-591107.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
MANJANNA CANARA BANK, J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU,
E
HIDKAL DAM BRANCH, HIDKAL DAM,
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E BELAGAVI-591107,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
REP. BY ANIL PATIL S/O. YASHWANTH PATIL.
DHARWAD BENCH
2. DATTATRAYA S/O. MAHADEV HAJJE,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. SHINDIHATTI VILLAGE, HIDAKAL DAM POST,
HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI-591107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERESH S. SAJJAN, FOR SMT.SRIYA S. KATAGIMATH,
ADVOCATE.)
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 CRI.MISC.NO.178/2024
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997
WP No. 105880 of 2024
BEFORE THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. AT
BELAGAVI AND SEEK AN ORDER DATED 31.08.2024 UNDER SECTION
14 OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL
ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY ACT, 2002, VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the respondent bank.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to
quash the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.178/2024 pending
before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Belagavi.
Petitioners are the absolute owners of the property bearing
VPC No.149 measuring 22 x 55 feet and VPC No.151
measuring 24 x 55 feet, situated at Sindihatti village, Post
Hidkaldam in Hukkeri taluka of Belagavi district and they had
obtained loan from the respondent bank by way of mortgage
and the property in question was given as security. It is the
contention of petitioners that they were making regular
payments of the loan amount to the bank and requested the
bank to make one time settlement to settle the dispute.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997
3. This being the state of affairs, petitioners were
served with a sale notice on 08.07.2022 under section 13(4)
of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2012 (SERFAESI
Act) for auction of the above said property to hand over the
same to the authorized officer, Canara Bank, Hidkal Branch
through M/s.Canbank Compute Service Limited, Sampige
Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that the proceedings initiated by the respondent
bank is illegal, contrary to provisions of law and violative of
the principles of natural justice. He submits that he is ready
and willing to pay the amount which was due earlier.
Accordingly, in view of initiation of these proceedings under
section 14 of the SERFAESI Act, the petitioners are before
this Court seeking for the quashing of the initiation of
proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are ready and willing to pay Rs.1,78,562-96,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997
which was actually due to be paid to the bank. Hence, this
petition.
6. Learned counsel representing the bank contends
that the petitioners had participated before the DRT
proceedings and thereafter challenged the sale notice as well
and unsuccessful, but has approached this Court once again
questioning the initiation of proceedings, under section 14 of
the SERFAESI Act. Learned counsel for the respondent bank
relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of K.Virupaksha and another vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2020) 4 SCC 440 contending that the
SERFAESI Act is a code by itself and the said Act provides for
remedy for borrowers for redressal of their disputes. He also
contends that the Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments,
including the one cited hereinabove, has laid down that in
the writ jurisdiction the Courts should not normally interfere
with the proceedings of the SERFAESI Act, where the
petitioner is borrower or guarantor has borrowed loan, given
guarantee for obtaining loan from the bank. Therefore, he
contends that the petition be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the respondent bank, though this Court has
sympathy with the petitioners, unfortunately it cannot
interfere with the proceedings initiated by the respondent
bank under section 14 of the SERFAESI Act, as it has
followed the procedure as contemplated under the SERFAESI
Act, which is a code by itself. The principles and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be deviated and this
Court should not interfere in such proceedings where the
SERFAESI Act, is a code by itself and remedies have to be
exhausted as per the said Act. Under the circumstances, this
petition is devoid of merits as it is not maintainable. Hence,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
ii) Petitioners are at liberty to explore alternative
remedy for recovery of any extra or outstanding amount
over and above the loan amount and the respondent bank
shall make good the said amount to the petitioners in case
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14997
the amount realized is over and above the outstanding
amount.
iii) It is also made clear that this order will not
preclude the petitioners from availing any other remedy
available to them in law.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-MCK
