IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.34329-331 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. C M MUFASIL @ SADDAM S/O CHOUDARY MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT MAQBUL MANZIL 2ND CROSS, YAKINSHA COLONY TARIKERE ROAD, BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301.
2. SMT. M.R.SEEMA BANU W/O C.M.MUFASIL @ SADDAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT MAQBUL MANZIL 2ND CROSS YAKINSHA COLONY TARIKERE ROAD BHADRAVATHI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301.
… PETITIONERS (By Mr. H.R. NARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR SRI RAJESHWARA P.N., ADV.) AND:
1. CORPORATION BANK LTD HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT MANGALA DEVI TEMPLE ROAD PANDESHWAR MANGALORE-575001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER RECOVERY DIVISION.
2. CORPORATION BANK ZONAL OFFICE CORPORATION BANK BUILDING, P.B.NO.64 CORPORATION BANK MARG, UDUPI-576101 REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER AND CIRCLE HEAD CORPORATION BANK 5TH FLOOR NITESH TIMES SQUARE NO.8 M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
4. THE SENIOR MANAGER CORPORATION BANK BHADRAVATHI, B.H.ROAD, P.B.NO.32 BHADRAVATHI-577303 … RESPONDENTS (By SRI V.B. RAVISHNAKAR FOR R1 – R4, ADV.) - - -
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the Respondents to grant permission to the petitioners to enter into Joint Development Agreement in respect of Schedule C property by considering the representation dtd. 15.06.2015 vide Annx-D or consider the one time settlement proposal submitted by the petitioners by permitting them to sell the Schedule C property as per representation dtd. 25.05.2016 vide Annx-L and etc.
These Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.H.R.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for Sri.Rajeshwara P.N., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.V.B.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs:
“1. a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to grant permission to the Petitioners to enter into Joint Development Agreement in respect of Schedule C property by considering the representation dated 15/06/2015 (Annexure-D) or consider the one time settlement proposal submitted by the Petitioners by permitting them to sell the Schedule C property as per Representation dated 25/05/2016 (Annexure-L) and pass such other orders as deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Allow the Writ petition directing the Respondents not to sell the Schedule-B property, but to sell only Schedule-C property for recovery of loan and release Schedule-B property to the Petitioners from the security interest created in their favor, and pass such other orders as deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs, in the interest of justice and equity.”
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in compliance of the interim order dated 23.03.2018, the petitioners had deposited a sum of `3.5 Crores with the respondent – Bank and the petitioners are ready and willing to settle the dues. It is further submitted that the petitioners be granted the liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority of the respondent – Bank within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and the aforesaid authority to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners by a speaking order in accordance with law. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case such a representation is submitted within the time limit which may be stipulated by this Court, necessary action shall be taken by the competent authority of the respondent – Bank.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to the competent authority of the respondent – Bank within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and the competent authority of the respondent – Bank is directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioners by a speaking order within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such representation.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
6. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV