A S MAHESH vs. CORPORATION BANK

PDF · subscribers
WP/24759/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01007595201814 June 2018Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The auction held pursuant to the sale notice did not receive any bids, rendering the notice infructuous. The court dismissed the writ petition, reserving liberty for the petitioner to challenge any fresh sale notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought to quash a sale notice issued by the Recovery Officer for the sale of immoveable properties. The petitioner remitted a demand draft of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the sale notice issued by the Recovery Officer was valid and infructuous due to lack of bids. The court also noted the petitioner's willingness for a One Time Settlement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 38, Rule 52(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.24759 OF 2018 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

A.S. MAHESH

S/O. A.P. SHANKARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

BASAVESWARA ROAD,

SOMWARPET TOWN & TALUK,

KODAGU.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI K. MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR SRI BIPIN HEGDE)

AND:

1.

CORPORATION BANK

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,

HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MANGALA DEVI TEMPLE ROAD,

MANGALORE AND BRANCH AT

1ST FLOOR, KAVERI COMPLEX,

M.G. ROAD, P.B. NO.21,

SOMWARPET TALUK,

KODAGU.

2.

RECOVERY OFFICER-2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2,

BENGALURU.

3.

SRI A.P. SHANKARAPPA

S/O. A.R. PUTTAPPA,

MAJOR.

4.

SRI A.S. MALLESH

S/O. A.P. SHANKARAPPA,

MAJOR.

BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4

ARE RESIDING AT BASAVESWARA ROAD,

SOMWARPET TOWN & TALUK,

KODAGU.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.B. RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R-1)

* * *

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DATED 7-5-2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER RULE 38 & 52(2) OF 2ND SCHEDULE OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 R/W. RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1993 DATED 7-5-2018 IN O.A. NO.346 OF 2015 VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo enclosing therewith a Demand Draft for Rs.10,00,000/- bearing No.017832 dated 13-6-2018 favouring Recovery Officer-2, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, is being remitted.

2.

Sri V.B. Ravishakar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, has received the said Demand Draft on behalf of respondent No.2 and submits, the same would be deposited before respondent No.2, i.e. Recovery Officer-2, Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Bengaluru. On such deposit being made, Recovery Officer shall issue cheque for said amount in favour of first respondent or transfer the said amount to the account of first respondent. Petitioner is seeking for quashing the sale notice dated 7-5-2018 issued by second respondent (Annexure-A) for sale of the immoveable properties described thereunder as Schedule A (Lot 1), Schedule A (Lot 2) and Schedule B.

3.

It is submitted by Sri V.B. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, that pursuant to sale notice, though auction came to be held on 15-6-2018 and the last date for submission of the bid was 13-6-2018, none had offered their bid and as such, sale notice has

become infructuous. Hence, he submits that first respondent would issue fresh notice in accordance with law to sell the properties described in sale notice (Annexure-A). In that view of the matter, prayer sought for in the present petition has become infructuous. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to take steps to challenge the fresh sale notice, if issued by first respondent, writ petition stands dismissed.

Since learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to settle dispute by way of One Time Settlement with first respondent – Bank and on account of there being no serious resistance to same by first respondent – Bank, they would be at liberty to arrive at such settlement. No opinion is expressed in that regard.

SD/-

JUDGE

kvk

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →