M/S TRIUMPH MECHANICS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ICICI BANK LIMITED
WP/9383/2025 · 2025-04-01
M Nagaprasanna
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22249 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22249 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:14100 WP No. 9383 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 9383 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1.
M/S. TRIUMPH MECHANICS PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS MR. L.GIRISH MRS. M.C.SMITHA NEAR TO MLA COLLEGE REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 FIRST FLOOR, 6/1 14, 10 CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.
2.
MR. L.GIRISH S/O LINGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS DIRECTOR, M/S. TRIUMPH MECHANICS PRIVATE LIMITED, FIRST FLOOR, 6/1, 14TH CROSS NEAR TO MLA COLLEGE, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 56 003 AND ALSO AT NO. 172 10TH MAIN ROAD, 9 BLOCK, 2ND STAGE NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU – 560 072.
3.
MRS. M.C.SMITHA W/O L.GIRISH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS FIRST FLOOR, 6/1, 14TH CROSS NEAR TO MLA COLLEGE, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 03 AND ALSO AT NO. 172, 10TH MAIN ROAD
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:14100 WP No. 9383 of 2025
9 BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU – 560 072. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SANDHYA U. PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND:
ICICI BANK LIMITED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER NO.4/10, MYTHREE TOWER NEAR OXFORD COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 068. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT BANK DTD. 13.01.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNX-F IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULED PROPERTY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
“A. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the possession notice issued by respondent bank dated 13/01/2025 produced at Annexure – F in respect of schedule property.
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:14100 WP No. 9383 of 2025
B. Grant any such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble court may consider fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard Smt. Sandhya U. Prabhu, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Francis Xavier, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The petitioners were before this Court in W.P.No.9138/2023, which comes to be disposed by an order dated 07.02.2024, by making the following observations:
“3. This Court in order to protect the interest of the petitioners had shown indulgence and had passed slew of orders. Orders dated 21.04.2023, 28.06.2023, 13.07.2023 and 29.01.2024 read as follows:- 21.04.2023
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Issue emergent notice to the respondent.
The petitioners are calling in question a possession notice dated 12.04.2023, issued by the respondent – Bank.
There shall be an interim order of stay of the possession notice dated 12.04.2023, subject to the petitioners depositing Rs.50/- lakhs, within eight weeks, in the following manner:
1. The petitioner shall deposit Rs.25/- lakhs within four weeks from today.
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:14100 WP No. 9383 of 2025
2. Remainder of Rs.25/- lakhs shall be paid within four weeks, thereafter.
3. Any deviation in paying the aforesaid amount within the time line as stipulated hereinabove, even of the first instance, would entail vacation of the interim order and would also run the risk of dismissal of the petition itself.
4. In the event the petitioners would not comply with the interim order, the Bank is at liberty to take possession of the property and take the proceedings to its logical conclusion."
28.06.2023
"Order on I.A.1/2023 I.A.No.1/2023 for dispensation is allowed.
Order on I.A.2/2023 A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.04.2023 has said as under:
“Heard the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
Issue emergent notice to the respondent.
The petitioners are calling in question a possession notice dated 12.04.2023, issued by the respondent – Bank.
There shall be an interim order of stay of the possession notice dated 12.04.2023, subject to the petitioners depositing Rs. 50/- lakhs, within eight weeks, in the following manner:
1. The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 25/- lakhs within four weeks from today.
2. Remainder of Rs. 25/- lakhs shall be paid within four weeks, thereafter.
3. Any deviation in paying the aforesaid amount within the time line as stipulated hereinabove, even of the first instance, would entail vacation
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC:14100 WP No. 9383 of 2025
of the interim order and would also run the risk of dismissal of the petition itself.
4. In the event the petitioners would not comply with the interim order, the Bank is at liberty to take possession of the property and take the proceedings to its logical conclusion.”
Learned Panel Counsel for the bank points out that the petitioner has paid only a sum of Rs.12 lakh which is bit less than the first installment and the entire second installment of Rs.25 lakh remaining unpaid.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in response submits that her client would in terms of patternalized orders of this Court would make payment of 1/3 of amount in demand within usual period of six weeks in all, each installment compartmentalized by two weeks.
In view of the above, the petitioner shall make payment of Rs.1,21,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and twenty one lakh) only as under:
(i) Rs.40,33,333/- (Rupees forty lakh thirty three thousand three hundred and thirty three ) only within two weeks;
(ii) Rs.40,33,333/- (Rupees forty lakh thirty three thousand three hundred and thirty three ) only within next two weeks; and,
(iii) the remainder i.e., Rs.40,33,334/- (Rupees forty lakh thirty three thousand three hundred and thirty four) only within two weeks next following, failing which not only the interim order stands rescinded on its own but it will cast its shadow on the merits of the main matter too.
I.A.No.2/2023 is disposed off.
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC:14100 WP No. 9383 of 2025
Interim order granted earlier is extended till next date of hearing, subject to above compliance.
Call this matter on 13.07.2023."
13.07.2023
"ORDER Counsel for the petitioners files a memo dated 13.7.2023 placing on record that, in compliance of the first condition stipulated in the interim order dated 28.6.2023, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.40,33,333/- on 11.8.2023 and a copy of the proof of remittance is furnished along with the memo.
2. To enable the counsel for the petitioners to report compliance of the second condition of the interim order dated 28.6.2023, call on 1.8.2023. Counsel for the petitioners files a memo dated 13.7.2023 placing on record that, in compliance of the first condition stipulated in the interim order dated 28.6.2023, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.40,33,333/- on 11.8.2023 and a copy of the proof of remittance is furnished along with the memo. 2. To enable the counsel for the petitioners to report compliance of the second condition of the interim order dated 28.6.2023, call on 1.8.2023."
29.01.2024
"ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that remainder of Rs.3 lakhs according to the calculation, the petitioners shall be deposited within the next two days with the Bank.
Therefore, that completes the compliance with the interim order granted earlier and modified later.
Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that the petitioners are still in due of Rs.16 lakhs of the amount to be complied with for compete compliance of the interim order.
- 7 -
NC: 2025:KHC:14100 WP No. 9383 of 2025
Therefore, the petitioners shall represent to the Bank, if any relief is wanting for restructuring or otherwise, if bona fides are completely shown by the petitioners in compliance with the interim order.
Interim order granted earlier, is extended till the next date of hearing.
List this matter on 07.02.2024."
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the interim orders passed from time to time have been complied with. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank also would accept such compliance.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would now submit that petitioners have submitted a representation to the Bank to restructure the loan which is pending consideration
6. In the light of the bonafides shown by the petitioners by making a deposit of close to Rs.1 crore 33 lakhs, the respondent-Bank shall consider representation made by the petitioners for restructuring the loan and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
At para No.6, this Court observed that in the light of the bonafides shown by depositing Rs.1.33 crores, the bank shall consider the representation made by the petitioners for restructuring of the loan and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This order is passed on 07.02.2024, a year has passed by. In the interregnum, it transpires that on
- 8 -
NC: 2025:KHC:14100 WP No. 9383 of 2025
06.05.2025, petitioner No.2 represented the bank seeking restructuring of the loan account. The bank has sought for several documents for the purpose of restructuring of the account. They are not furnished. On 13.08.2024, in the e- mail, the contention of petitioner No.2 is as follows:
“Due to the ongoing audit, there has been a delay in the submission of the requested documents. The terms presented were unexpected, and there was no mention of a reassessment of the company’s financials in the Honorable High Court order.
This Court had disposed the petition on a plain and simple term of submitting a representation to the respondent – bank. The
order is misinterpreted by the petitioners by contending that the bank is seeking for financial documents and all necessary documents, which were not ordered by the High Court and therefore, they are not obliged to submit at that point in time and if time is granted, they would submit the same. The order is misinterpreted by the petitioners by contending that the High Court has not directed to do so. The petitioner in not entitled to show any further indulgence. It is open for the petitioners to avail such remedy as is available in law.
- 9 -
NC: 2025:KHC:14100 WP No. 9383 of 2025
4. With the afore-made observations, the petition stands
disposed.
Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 138 CT:SS