IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.6547/2017 (GM – RES) AND WRIT PETITION NOs.6618-6619/2017 (GM – RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. GOUTAM KUMAR S/O BHIM RAJ JAIN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.109, GOPAL MAHAL BUILDING GUNDOPANTH STREET BANGALORE – 560 002 …PETITIONER [BY SRI.SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.] AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CORPORATION BANK J.C.ROAD BRANCH NO.66/1 AND 66/2 1ST FLOOR, ARUNA COMPLEX J.C.ROAD BANGALORE – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER 2. SRI.K.RAGHUNATH S/O LATE V.R.KRISHNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.3, 5TH CROSS SHANKARPURAM BANGALORE – 560 004 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI.V.B. RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1; R2 SERVED] ******* THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 13.01.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE – C AND SALE FIXED ON 16.02.2017 AND PAPER PUBLICATION COLUMN NO.22 AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the auction sale notice dated 13.01.2017. This Court, while directing notice to the respondents granted interim order subject to deposit of `1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) with respondent No.1 within four weeks from the date of the order.
2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 in addition to the statement of objections filed to these petitions would point out that the petitioner has not deposited the said amount and as such the benefit of interim order in any event would not enure to the petitioner.
3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would also further point out that the auction sale which was proposed through the impugned notice dated 13.01.2017 has not taken place.
4. If that be the position, the prayer made in the petitions do not survive for consideration. The petitioner if he so desires, may approach the 1st respondent - Bank for settlement, before any fresh action is taken by respondent No.1.
5. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
I.A.1/2017 filed for vacating interim order also does not survive for consideration, accordingly the application stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:SN