Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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:
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.
RECOVERY OFFICER-2
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2,
BENGALURU.
SRI A.P. SHANKARAPPA
S/O. A.R. PUTTAPPA,
MAJOR.
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.
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.
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