IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.51727/2016(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. A.HRUDAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE A. DAS, R/AT, NO.11/2, 6TH CROSS, OLD PENSION LANE, BANGALORE – 560 018. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADV. FOR SRI.VIJAYAKUMARA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE BHARATH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1047, TRIVENI ROAD, GOKUL POST, OPP. M.S.RAMAIAH COLLEGE MAIN GATE, MATTIKERE, BANGALORE – 560 054.
2. D.SAMPATH KUMAR, SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LEGAL HEIR SRI.SENDHIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O.LATE D.SAMPATH KUMAR, NO.11, 6TH CROSS, OLD PENSION MOHALLA, CHAMARAJ PET, BANGALORE – 560 018.
3. SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O.LATE LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT. NO.6, 6TH CROSS, N.H.COLONY, SUBHEDAR PALYA, YESHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 022.
(BY SRI.T.DEVAIAH, ADV. FOR R1 …RESPONDENTS R2 & 3 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 15.09.2016 AUCTIONING ON 27.09.2016 ISSUED BY R-1 IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY AT ANNEXURE – C TO WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein is before this Court seeking to protect the possession of the petitioner in respect of the property indicated in the Schedule to the lease agreement dated 30.12.2010.
2. The need for approaching this Court had arisen since respondent No.1-Bank had initiated action against respondents No. 2 and 3 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the petitioner was apprehensive that his possession would be disturbed in view of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. This Court at the first instance had granted the interim order and protected the possession.
3. When the petition is taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed a memo dated 24.10.2017 enclosing the documents thereto. The Clearance Certificate dated 24.10.2017 would indicate that the loan secured by the landlord of the petitioner viz., respondent No.3 has been repaid and the loan account has been closed on 04.10.2017.
4. If that be the position, the need for respondent No.1 to proceed under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act would not arise and the grievance as put forth by the petitioner herein would also not survive at this point in time.
Accordingly, the petition and the application in I.A.No.2/2016 are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms