IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.53412/2014 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.11245/2015 (GM-RES) W.P.No.53412/2014 BETWEEN:
MR. JAFAR KONDOTH SON OF SHRI ABDURAIMAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, JAFAR MANZIL, PALLIKARA THAVAM POST, CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA-670301 (BY SRI HANEEF M H, ADV.) AND:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER M/S. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT MAIN ROAD POLLIBETTA, SOUTH COORG, KODAGU DISTRICT-571215[ (BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA R HEGDE, ADV.) ... PETITIONER .. RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DTD.14.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8(5) AND 9(1) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT-2002 AS ANNEX-F HEREIN.
W.P.No.11245/2015 BETWEEN:
M/S. HOTEL KODAGU INTERNATIONAL KAIKERI VILLAGE, PONNAMPET HOBLI, NEAR BUS STAND GONICOPPAL VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRIC-571215.
REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. P. ABDUL JABBAR SON OF SHRI C MAMMU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS (BY SRI HANEEF M H, ADV.) AND:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER M/S. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT MAIN ROAD, POLLIBETTA SOUTH COORG KODAGU DISTRICT-571215.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA R HEGDE, ADV. FOR C/R) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DATED 24.02.2015 (ANNEX-J) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8(5) AND 9(1) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT-2002 AS ANNEX-H HEREIN.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The issue involved in both these petitions is similar. In W.P.No.53412/2014 the petitioner’s house property is the secured asset. The issue essentially pertains to the loan transaction between the petitioner in W.P.No.11245/2015 and the respondent-Bank. In both these petitions, the respective sale notices dated 14.10.2014 and 24.02.2015 are assailed. The action initiated by the respondent-Bank was due to the fact that the petitioner in W.P.No.11245/2015 had not repaid the loan. This Court through the interim orders had directed payment of the amount as indicated therein.
2. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondent-bank would submit that the sale as proposed through the notices dated 14.10.2014 and 24.02.2015 has not taken place. If that be the position, a further consideration of the instant petitions would not arise as the prayers have rendered themselves infructuous. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in W.P.No.11245/2015 has paid certain amounts and though the balance is liable to be paid, the demand as made by the respondents is not justified and the petitioner will repay and settle if the account is reconciled.
3. Even if that be the position, this Court in these petitions cannot determine the correctness or otherwise of the claim as made by the respondent-bank or the actual amount that is liable to be paid by the petitioner. Therefore, the appropriate course for the petitioners would be to put forth their proposal through a representation before the respondent-Bank indicating the manner in which the balance amount would be settled and if any concession is to be granted by the respondent- bank to seek for the same in that regard.
4. Since as already noticed the sale has not taken place, before any further action is taken by the respondents, it would be open for the petitioner to file such representation and negotiate with the respondent- bank to settle the amount. In this regard, the submission as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also taken note that an opportunity be provided to the petitioner to submit the representation to the higher officers as according to the petitioner, the Manager of the respondent-bank is not very receptive to the proposals that are being put forth by the petitioner.
5. On that aspect, though this Court is not required to express any opinion on the allegation made by the petitioner, the petitioner is granted the benefit of making the representation not only to the respondent, but also to the appropriate Officer in the Regional Office of the respondent-bank so that a consideration of the grievance as put forth by the petitioner is taken note and an appropriate decision is taken with regard to the offer that is put forth by the petitioner to settle the issue with the respondent-bank. In that regard, it is made clear that the representation, if any by the petitioner shall be submitted within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. If such representation within the time frame is submitted by the petitioner, the respondent-bank shall not precipitate the matter till a decision is taken on the representation. Needless to mention that if the mutual negotiations does not take place, it is only thereafter the respondent-bank shall proceed further to take action in accordance with law.
In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms