High Court Karnataka High Court

J Venkatesh vs Recovery Officer on 17 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
J Venkatesh vs Recovery Officer on 17 July, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN G}5gL'QRE

DATED THIS THE nth DAY OF JULY 29%.: j 

BEFORE

'THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE"A;fiT«:J.   

WRIT PE'1*rrIoN Nos. 13737/2009 14813/20c9'%&L %i _

Gzv2..m;:'_:;
BETWEEN: * J

J.\/ezlkatesh, '  «-

Aged about 37 years, ' 'M _

S/0 late V.Jaya;raIn,   ._ 

N935, BrindaVarL.Pa1§?adise,:  

15' Cross,       
Ba11ga1or€+5t3"Q..        ...PE'1'I'I'IONER

{Sri PLg:t:]ge%R;%Ra;§§§sh%%&L%%Laks£fini Hana, Advs.)

ANS:

1. R*3COV€1'j? Qfficer,  "
Eights Recovcnfy 'Tzibunal,
A ";§{i'iS1'r;:?; BhaVaz1,'H'1:1dsI1 Circle,
" Nrulpaflzxfizga Road,

   ._-33Aaaga.;;>r¢T~5z30 00 1.

2. "Qor1*j'0raf;ion Bank,

By. its Chairman & M.D.,
_C9rp6rate Ofiice,
V iviangala Devi Temple Road,
"}:fangalore~5?5 00 3.

The Branch Manager,

A.R.M.BraI1<:h,

Corporation Bank,

14/ 15, K.Kamaraj Road,

Ba12ga10re~56{) G52. ...RESP'()NBEN'I'S



11.12.2008 pursuant to a notification. The petitioner
Claims that he is a successful bidder in the 
accordingly made deposits 2111 terms of  
The deposit made by the  «isms   l
Rs.81,81,(}10/--. A memo.is_a.1s.o= 
on 16.01.2009 for issuaneueiof is  It
appears, several  filed by
M/s.S1.zjatha E-1a:o.d1ooxss_  which were
not    'appears has issued a
legal    the recovexy
ofiiceij to   however the same has
not been   writ petition.

V'  "$3..  R.R.:-urnesh, learned counsel

 the petitioner submits that the petitioner

  the entire sum of money. Hence,

the recovery ofiicer or in his absence, the Presiding

 .. lfifiigzeii is obliged to deliver possession of the mortgaged

"property.

3. Mr.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel appearirig for

responéents 2 and 3 submits that they have very kmefi
/



role to piay in this matter, inasmuch as, the difi"e.zfence,
if any, is between the auction purchaser -"the
recovery ofiicer. 'V  t V' V V.
4. Mr.Sanjeev Angadi, ieafiied. 
for respondent No.1 submits A. 2

handed to Recovery Qt.” wast’?
Withdrawn by the wtéiS”e:it;’usted to
Recovery Ofiieer No. Ofiieer No.1
has been Hence,

the I3Qeco’*.~,IeIj;””‘§§fi’feerf”i’sotzixoi; position to deiiver

possession of ‘

j. .5. the papers. Apparently, an

– v . aegficatfiotfit eras filed before the Debt Recovery

“the Debt Recovery Tfibillial was of the

t_hat.vtA.7~{IAie Recovery Ofiicer No.2 will not be in a

to do justice to the party. Hence, he has

A’ ‘A~;fi3i'{}idraWn the matter finm RCCOV&I§%’ C)fiieerNo.2 and has

” “e11t3:’t1ste(i the same to Recovery Officer No. 1.111 the given

set of circumstances, if Recovery Offieer No.2 is not in a

/

position £0 do justice and Recovery Oflicer No.1 ie not Q

available, she having ban repatriated, it was incumbent

upen the Presiding Ofiieer hjmseif to V.

matter. An auction purchaser who

substantial sum cannot be maciée _Tf1*<')m'._.:

pest for possession of the prepertyf

Hence, the foflowiiig order' ;iés.sed: A
Petitions stand dispesetiei' the Presiding
Officer to deal the with law.

Conzpliaxicie the date of receipt of

this{)i:(1eIj..

” i_§f”’Pe1:.itions izlisposed of accordingly.

Sd/-v
Judge