CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2015) 08 KAR CK 0404

N. Renukaraj vs State Bank of Mysore, Malleshwaram Branch and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 4 August 2015 · Citation: (2016) 1 BC 444 : (2015) 5 KarLJ 443

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.S. Bopanna, J
RESULT
Disposed off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Nos. 8273, 8274 and 8379 of 2015 (GM-DRT)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 356 words

A.S. Bopanna, J—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the e-auction sale notice dated 19-1-2015 in DCP No. 2537, in OA No. 882 of 1998. In that regard, the petitioner is also assailing the order dated 23-1-2015 passed by the Recovery Officer at Annexure-M, whereby the sale has been ordered. The petitioner claims that he was not a party to OA No. 882 of 1998, and has filed an application under Sections 28(2) and 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 before the Recovery Officer in DCP No. 2537. By the said application, the petitioner seeks that the property owned by him is not liable to be sold, therefore, the attachment of the schedule property be released. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering the said application, the Recovery Officer by order dated 23-1-2015 has ordered e-auction of the property. It is in that regard, e-auction notice dated 19-1-2015 has been issued. This Court while directing notice on 2-3-2015 had granted interim stay of sale notice dated 19-1-2015 at Annexure-J. In that view, the sale as was proposed has not taken place. If that be so, the Recovery Officer would have to reorder issue of sale notice, if the further proceedings are to take place.

2.

In that view, before taking such steps, if the Recovery Officer is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law, the ends of justice would be met. Therefore, a direction is issued to the Recovery Officer to consider the application filed by the petitioner as at Annexure-K to these writ petitions on its merits and thereafter take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law. All contentions of the petitioner in support of the said application are left open to be urged before the Recovery Officer. Until the application is considered and disposed of, the sale proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. In view of disposal of the writ petitions, IA No. 2 of 2015 does not survive for consideration; it stands disposed of accordingly.