IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.33760/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. Vittala Devaru of Sri. Shiroor Matha, Udupi Car Street, Udupi-576 101.
Rep. by its Peetadhipathi And Adalthedar, His Holyness Sri Sri Laxmivara Theertha Swamiji, Shiroor Matha, Car Street, Udupi-576 101.
(By Sri. Keshava Bhat A, Advocate) AND:
1. Corporation Bank, Manipal Branch (128), P.B.No.88, Manipal-576104, Udupi District, Represented by its Chief Manager.
2. The Authorised Officer, Corporation Bank, Manipal-576 104, Udupi District.
… Petitioner 3. M/s. Kanaka Infratech Ltd., Corporate Office “Mangalya”, C-Wing, 5th Floor, Off Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059, Rep. by its Managing Director.
… Respondents (By Sri. V. B. Ravishankar, Advocate for R1; R2 & R3 served & unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned E-Auction proceedings dated 18.05.2016 on the file of the R-1 Bank vide Annexure-A and to declare the same as unconstitutional and illegal and etc.
This Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Keshava Bhat A, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. V.B. Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the e-auction proceedings dated 18.05.2016 issued by respondent No.1-Bank.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Bank submitted that nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition as pursuant to the e-auction notice, sale has not taken place.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently, substantial amount has been paid by the petitioner towards loan amount and he is ready and willing to settle the full loan amount. In this regard, learned counsel further submits that petitioner is ready to make an offer for settlement of loan amount to the respondent-Bank and the petitioner be granted liberty to submit such an offer.
5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that in case such an offer is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit an offer for settlement of loan amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
7. Needless to state that in case such an offer is filed by the petitioner, the competent authority of the respondent-Bank shall consider the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such an offer.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to take recourse of such remedy as may be available to him under law in case petitioner is aggrieved.
9. Needless to state that no such liberty shall be reserved to the petitioner before cause of action occurs. If any action taken by the respondent is aggrieved by the petitioner, then petitioner is always at liberty to take recourse to such remedy, which may be available to him under law without seeking leave of this Court.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-