Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 84034 (KAR)

HANAMANT GOOLAPPA PATTAR v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER

WP/104924/2025 · 2025-07-22

Pradeep Singh Yerur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 104924 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104924 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: HANAMANT GOOLAPPA PATTAR, AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/A. NO.24, HAURSHA NILAYA, PLOT NO.95B/10C/95C+4B/8, WARD NO.34A, RAJEEV NAGAR, NEAR NSSO BHAVAN, UNKAL NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580031. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, STATION ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, JAIN BOARDING, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE LETTER OF SALE NOTICE BY WAY OF E-AUCTION REF:ROHBL/SL/JULY/09/2025-2026 DATED 08-07-2025, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-BANK VIDE ANNEXURE-B. IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED. B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF PETITIONER FOR RENEWAL OF LOAN ACCOUNT OR GIVE SOME TIME TO PAY THE AUCTION SALE AMOUNT BY INSTALLMENTS AND ETC. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 104924 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) Petitioner is before this Court questioning the E- Auction sale notice dated 08.07.2025 at Annexure-B. Petitioner submits that his wife had taken term loan of Rs.11,00,000/- from the respondent/Bank and she was engaged in the business under the name and style of ‘M/s.G.M. Enterprises’. And she has also availed loans of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/- and an overdraft facility of Rs.15,00,000/-, aggregated to a sum of Rs.33,00,000/-. Petitioner had not repaid the loan amount and her account was declared as ‘non performing assets’ by the respondent/Bank. Accordingly, Bank got issued notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) taking possession of schedule immoveable property and thereafter, a fresh demand notice was issued on 29.03.2025. On 23.04.2025 under Section 13(2) of the Act - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 104924 of 2025 followed by an E-Auction sale notice on 06.06.2025, the respondent/Bank issued Sale Notice proposing the sale of the schedule immoveable property on 25.06.2025. Despite this process, the petitioner had not make good payment and accordingly, he had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘DRT’) in S.A.No.299/2025 seeking to quash the sale notice issued by the respondent/Bank under the Act, same was dismissed. Pursuant to the order of DRT, the respondent/Bank got issued the E-Auction sale notice on 08.07.2025 fixing the date of E-Auction on 24.07.2025 and showing the total liability of Rs.20,51,617/-. 2. The petitioner contends that his wife had taken loan, she was unable to repay the said loan amount due to several reasons and it is contended that there is a school running in the schedule property, which is now sought to be sold by way of E-Auction, which is valued more than 2 crores. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is ready and willing to make good the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 104924 of 2025 entire loan amount. In the present petition, demand notice is to an extent of Rs.20 lakh and odd. If reasonable time is granted, considering the fact that if the sale of the schedule property is permitted to be conducted by way of E-Auction, which is valued more than the sought to be demanded, the petitioner would be put severe hardship. Under the circumstances, he seeks indulgence of this Court on sympathetic ground. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank contends that it is not only this amount of Rs.20 lakh and odd but more than Rs.2 crores is due to which the petitioner is liable to make payment and if he makes payment, respondent/Bank would not have objections. They would release the sale so sought to be conducted by way of E- Auction, if no payments are made, they would continue to proceed as per law and he also submits that this petition is not maintainable in view of alternative efficacious remedy being available to the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 104924 of 2025 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The fact remains that the wife of petitioner had taken the loan, which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the subject property is a school property, though it may not be clear as what is the actual value of the property. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to make payment of outstanding amount as per the present e-auction sale notice, this Court is of the opinion that indulgence could be shown, provided the petitioner is put to certain terms. Under the circumstances, petitioner shall make payment in two installments liberty can be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is disposed of. (ii) The E-auction sale notice dated 08.07.2025 issued by the respondent/Bank is hereby quashed, subject to following conditions: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9086 WP No. 104924 of 2025 (a) The petitioner shall make good payment of the outstanding amount as per Annexure-B amounting to Rs.20,51,617/- in two installments. (b) The first installment shall be paid within four weeks from today and second installment shall be paid within four weeks thereafter. (iii) It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to make payment of any of installments, respondent/Bank is at liberty to proceed further and the order passed today would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. (iv) The payment of amount to be made by the petitioner includes the interest component by the respondent/Bank till the date of making such payment. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20