IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8618 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Mr. G. Ganesh Aged about 43 years, S/o. Late Gurunath G R/at No.A4, No.802 Elite Promanade, 7th Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru- 560 078.
(By Sri. H. S. Dwarakanath, Advocate for Sri. Ajit Kalyan, Advocate) AND:
1. The Bangalore City Co-Operative Bank Ltd., No. 3, Pampa Mahakavi Road, Chamarajpet Bengaluru-560 018 Rep. By its Authorized Officer Sri. P. Manjunatha 2. M/s. Suraksha properties No. 7, Shree Renuka Nilaya, Near Lakshmi Temple, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095.
... Petitioner Rep. By its Partner Shree Koushik Gowda R ... Respondents (By Sri. Lokesh K.V, Advocate for C/R1) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue order or direction not to confirm the auction sale dated 04.02.2019 which is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-G and consequently hold that the sale held in pursuance of the sale notice issued in Samyuktha Karnataka dated 01.01.2019 is void and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. H. S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for Sri. Ajit Kalyan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Lokesh K.V., learned counsel for Caveator/respondent No.1.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction not to confirm the Auction Sale dated 04.02.2019 bearing No.BCCB/AO/ 958/2018-19 which is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-G and consequently hold that the sale held in pursuance of the sale notice issued in Samyuktha Karnataka dated 01.01.2009 is void.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider the Application for stay in the light of the hardship that would be caused in the absence of stay and violation of Rule 8(5) and 6 of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002.
c) Grant such other and further relief/s as are just even including the cost of this petition in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) to decide the application preferred by the petitioner in a time bound manner in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that he has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the application for stay preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Till the application for stay is decided, no precipitative action shall be taken by the respondent- Bank.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and claims of the parties.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-