IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.35739 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN Sri. D.M. Nagaraj, S/o. Late A. Muniyappa, Aged about 54 Years, No.44, Channakeshava Nilaya, Muneswara Layout, SEA College Road, 4th Cross, Devasandra, K.R. Puram, Bangalore-560 036. ….Petitioner (By Sri. J. Aravind Babu, Advocate) AND 1. The State Bank of India, SME Branch, Station Road, Bellary – 583 101, Represented by its Branch Manager.
2. M/S. Hill Rock Mineral Private Ltd., No.1031, Rajeev Nagar, 29th Ward, Hospet – 583 203.
Also at house No. 139, 3rd Ward, Behind Idgah, Basaveshwara Badavane, Hospet – 583 201 Represented by its Managing Director Mujeeb Ahmed Shaik.
3. Sri. Mujeeb Ahmed Shaik, S/o. Soudhagar Shah Sahib, Managing Director, M/S. Hill Rock Minerals Private Ltd., No.139, 3rd Ward, Behind Idgah, Basaveshwara Badavane, Hospet – 583 201.
4. Smt. C. Zammera Begaum, W/o. Mujeeb Ahmed Shaik, House NO. 139, 3rd Ward, Behind Idgah, Basaveshwara Badavane, Hospet – 583 201. …Respondents (By Sri. B.N. Tulsi Kumar, Advocate for R1, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are served, unrepresented) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the sale notice dated 25.06.2014 published in the new Indian Express newspaper vide Annexure-A published by the respondent No.1 and to direct the respondent No.1 Bank to take action against the assets of the respondent No.2 firm and the personal properties of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary hearing – B group, this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER This writ petition is directed against sale notice dated 25.06.2014 (Annexure-A), issued by the 1st respondent, the Indian Bank, proposing to sell the immovable property belonging to the petitioner, who stood as guarantor for the loan borrowed by respondent No.3.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- bank submits that the impugned sale notice dated 25.06.2014 has not been acted upon and no auction was initiated, pursuant to the said sale notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said submission.
3. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for 1st respondent-bank, the prayers sought by the petitioner in this writ petition do no survive for consideration and the writ petition has become infructuous.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of as, having become infructuous, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate legal forum, in the event any fresh notice issued to him.
VR.
Sd/- JUDGE.