High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Apoorva Roller Flour Mills vs Syndicate Bank on 19 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Apoorva Roller Flour Mills vs Syndicate Bank on 19 November, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN€rALORE.,_p

DATED THIS THE 19"' DAY OF NOVEMBER,   

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MoHm_ si}é.ti:§VA 

WRIT PETITION No.3597?p%oEi2oio (GM-eifggisgp J
BETWEEN: F' J i  V'

M/s. Apoorva Rolier Flou'i~.MilE_s'--.  i V
A Registered partnership firm iv
Plot No.11, Industrial Area» - if
Baikampady, Maii'gajiore=:_ 1 X
Rep by its Ma.nagirfg_ .Pa~rtner= _ _ _ V
T.R. Venkatesh_.Murthy.,    ..Petitioner

(By Sri  
AND: i T 

Syndicate amp

 , A Pananjbulr Branch»  _____ H ,
 "Panambtt'ir*,. Mangalore
 Rep-by i.ts«Autho_rised Officer. ..Respondent

' =  '---.This2§i_21dt'ppetition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the »Cons1;itu"1:i-on of India, praying to quash the notification

~p dated' 2}'; 10.2010 published in the times of India Newspaper,
   '-Mangal0.r_e? Edition dated 23.10.2010 published by the
" :3re'spo4ndent Bank (Produced As Annexure-E}.

 "This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing.

K  this day the Court made the following-



-21
ORDER

The auction notification at Annexure~e, dated

21.10.2010 published in “Times of

Newspaper dated 23.10.2010, is called

this writ petition.

2. The respondent-b_a««nl< has the

petitioner's property for aucyti..C5'jnv:__on_v the that
the petitioner has not""–reyp.a'i«d_ borrowed
by it. The petltio.,ner:_'hadiitbojrrowed «certain sums of
money by rnortgaging the
property-_in ..C;Liest'it):n%,_'i'vlfl'oi}vev.er, the amounts are not

repaidto 7_Uiti'rnately, the auction notice is

'l%"*~:ssuied' under thleiprovisions of SARFAESI Act. The

'\'a.Lict.iori..lS-«..schVe.Cl'i;sled to be held on 22.11.2010.

of the availability of alternative and

7-~.___"efficaci'o;is remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery

:"of'Tri:bunal under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act,

P'

this Court deciines to entertain this writ petition more

particulariy in view of the judgment of the Apex

in the case of United Bank of India vs.

Tendon and others in SLPv(C)No. 22'

reported in (2010):; size 110.22; '

e for the

4. Sri Manmohen,
petitioner brings to that the
Debt Recovery’_:’Tribun’a’i”:.~é:’t oniy for
three days ::.ir’. difficuit for the
123?;-“i:)’i:’*R§Vecovery Tribunal and
seek int’e.rVi”rn éaagrlhiest. Since the

auction, is s’c’hedu,|edA”toV”‘be taken piace on 22.11.2010

‘ ‘he seei<?s=in'terim orders.

not propose to interfere with the

auctionv_.p~ro’c«eedings. The auction which is scheduied

be ‘he.-Aid on 22.11.2010 shali continue. However,

2

-4″

the confirmation of sale shall not take place for a

period of one month from the date of auction.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner

the Debt Recovery Tribunal and:-s’e’e~i<.an'_:Y if

interim orders. The order gran__ted_A.'byb"vthIs.

staying the confirmation of sa~i.e?;-vacvahtesi' a.iti:toVn*iatica||y
after four weeks. Ali':1q.i,Iest'ibo"ri$vi.I'.3'rei'-kept 'ofje'n to be
urged before theDebt Reco_ve'r§

Writ petitio;;n:i1"'is ;<di3i'.%iis'3ed."'with the aforesaid