Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 83581 (KAR)

SRI.PARAMESHA v. SHRIRAM HOUSING FINANCE LTD

WP/3747/2023 · 2025-08-28

B M Shyam Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33662 WP No. 3747 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3747 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.PARAMESHA SON OF CHIKKAMADANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. SMT JYOTHI M WIFE OF PARAMESHA C AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO 16/126, NAYAKARA STREET, RAILWAY EXTENSION, CHAMARAJANAGAR, KARNATAKA 571313. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A.,ADVOCATE) AND: SHRIRAM HOUSING FINANCE LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER MR PRASHANTH B B LEVEL 3, WOCKHARDT TOWERS, EAST WING C -2 BLOCK, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33662 WP No. 3747 of 2023 BADRAKURIA COMPLEX, BADRA (EAST) MUMBAI 400051 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LOKESH K V AND LAW VIBES.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 19/10/2022 IN REFERENCE NO. SHFL/13(2)/6/OCT/2022 DECLARING THE PETITIONER LOAN ACCOUNT AS NON PERFORMING ASSET AND DEMANDED TO PAY RS.16,68,438/- WITHIN 60 DAYS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E; QUASHING THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 10/01/2023 AND TAKING FORCIBLE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER-CONSTRUCTED HOUSE, PRODUCED HEREWITH, AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F AND RESTORE THE HOUSE PROPERTY TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33662 WP No. 3747 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER None appears for the petitioners and this Court's previous order dated 25.09.2024 reads as under: The learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that the interim order granted on 29.07.2024 has not been complied with. Therefore, the interim order granted stands vacated." This Court can only infer lack of interest in prosecuting the petition and therefore, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr