Kalavathi K. Kulkarni, Vishnu Teerth, Prasad Krishnamurthy and Geetha Alur vs State Bank of India and Sri Ramakanth Alur

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are before this Court assailing the sale notices dated 10.11.2011 and 15.11.2011 which are impugned at Annexures-A1 to A5. Petitioners are also seeking for issue of mandamus to show the property description and valuation of the property i.e., the Open Commercial NA Plot bearing Sy. No. 05/3, Seethimani Village Taluk and District, Bagalkot. The extent of the property is stated in the petition. The petitioners also contend that the respondents be directed to take action against the property of the principal borrower alone. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1-bank has brought the property belonging to the petitioners also for sale, though they are only the guarantors in respect of the property. It is their further contention that description and the valuation of the property as indicated in the notice is not appropriate and therefore, the property belonging to the petitioners would be sold at a meager price.

Initially, when notice was ordered by this Court, further proceedings had been stayed. In that view, the sale as proposed did not take place. In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the respondents has filed a detailed memo dated 02.07.2013. From the same, it is seen that insofar as the right of the respondent No. 1-Bank to recover the loan, the proceedings as contended in O.A. No. 338/2011 has been filed and all contentions are urged therein. In the instant proceedings, the sale proposed is under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Considering the fact that sale has not taken place, as indicated in the memo if any further action is taken, appropriate valuation would be made after properly describing the property as it has to be done for the purpose of the same. In that view, it is contended that the prayer in the petition at this juncture would not survive.

Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 may resort to the very same procedure, all that is necessary to be clarified is that since the sale has not taken place and when the respondent No. 1-Bank has indicated that it would proceed in the manner indicated in the memo, at this point no further consideration would be necessary. But, if the respondent No. 1-Bank gets the re-valuation of the property and if any further action is taken and if the petitioners are still aggrieved by such action by the respondent No. 1-Bank either with regard to the valuation, description of the property or bringing to sale the petitioners property in question, the petitioners would have the liberty of assailing the same at that juncture. Hence, with the said liberty, the petitions stand disposed of.