IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.29213/2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI RAVISHA SHETTY S/O RAMANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KAGEKANA HOUSE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K DISTRICT 575001 (BY SRI SRIKANTH N V, ADV. FOR SRI SACHIN B S, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, D.K MANGALORE 575001 2. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA BANTWAL CROSS ROAD BRANCH BANTWAL, D.K.-D.K 574201 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER (BY SRI K P YOGANNA, HCGP. FOR R1 SRI AKASH P., ADV. FOR ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.07.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 02.07.2015 as at Annexure-A to the petition.
2. The petitioner had borrowed certain amount from respondent No.2. Since the said amount had not been repaid, respondent No.2 initiated action as provided under Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 02.07.2015 was passed by respondent No.1 in a proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is at this stage, the petitioner was before this Court assailing the same.
3. The very ground as urged in this petition would disclose the fact that the petitioner is due to pay the amount to respondent No.2-Bank is not in dispute and certain difficulty has been expressed by the petitioner due to which default had occurred. This Court in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to settle the matter with the respondents had exercised the discretion and granted interim order, subject to the condition that the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- be paid within four weeks. In the order dated 16.07.2015, it was further made clear that if the amount is not deposited, the interim order would stand automatically vacated.
4. Respondent No.2-Bank has filed the objection statement opposing the contentions that are put forth in the instant petition. It is in that light brought to the notice of this Court that the condition as imposed through the interim order has not been complied by the petitioner.
5. If that be the position, the interim order dated 16.07.2015 would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner and in the circumstance where the petitioner has not shown the bona fides in settling the matter, this Court need not entertain this petition any further. However before respondent No.2 takes any further action, if the petitioner desires to settle the matter with respondent No.2-Bank, the same shall be done in the meanwhile.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms