IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.56768/2016 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
SRI G GOPALA REDDY S/O SRI VENKU REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING OF NO.1408 2ND MAIN, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-560 086 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMANA M V V, ADV.) AND:
1. THE RCOVERY OFFICER II DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL KRISHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER ANDHRA BNAK GANDHI NAGAR BRANCH BANGALORE-560 009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T P MUTHANNA, ADV. FOR R2 R1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE AUCTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-1 DATED 01.10.2016 BEARING RC NO.8942 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R I.A.No.2/2017 is filed by the applicant therein seeking that they be substituted in place of respondent No.2. Since respondent No.2 has thereafter assigned the debts to the applicant, the applicant is also a necessary party. In that light, respondent No.2 as subsisting presently is also necessary to remain on record and the applicant in I.A.No.2/2017 is now treated as respondent No.3. The amendment to that effect be made in the causetitle.
2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the sale notice dated 01.10.2016. This Court at the first instance while granting interim order on 04.11.2016 had imposed condition to deposit the amount as stated therein. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the said amount has been deposited or not, the very fact that respondent No.2 has assigned the debt to the presently impleaded respondent viz., Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited would disclose that the debt still subsists, notwithstanding the contentions urged herein.
3. Therefore in a normal circumstance where the sale has not taken pursuant to the impugned notice, no further consideration herein would arise. However, if the petitioner seeks to settle the matter with respondents No. 2 and 3, an appropriate representation shall be made in that regard. Even otherwise, if any fresh action is to be taken by the assignee viz., respondent No.3 who has been impleaded herein, such action shall only be commenced after issuing a demand notice to the petitioner and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. Contentions in that regard are left open.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms