Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1059 (KAR)

K. S. Sunil Gupta v. Dena Bank, Bangalore

2015-09-07

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioners in these petitions while assailing the sale notices dated 16-4-2010, 29-10-2009 and 3-12-2009 respectively, have also assailed Clause 4.2.7 of the Master Circular - Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning Pertaining to Advances dated 1-7-2009. The fact that the petitioners had borrowed the amounts from the respondents 1 and 2-Bank, is not in dispute. The fact that the amounts remained outstanding cannot also be disputed. It is in that view the respondents had initiated action as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act'). 2. While initiating the said action the respondents 1 and 2 had classified the account of the petitioners as NPA keeping in view of the provisions of the Act and Master Circular issued by the respondent 3-Reserve Bank of India. It is in that view when the sale notices were issued, petitioners have assailed the sale notice by contending that the provisions made in the Master Circular is also not justified in law. 3. Insofar as the challenge to the Master Circular made in these petitions, the contentions raised are no more res Integra, inasmuch as, as pointed by the learned Counsel for respondent 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only up held the validity of the provisions contained in the Act but while dealing so has also referred to the Master Circular issued by the respondent 3 from time to time. In this regard reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons Private Limited and Others v Union of India and Others along with other connected petitions and appeals, more particularly, W.P. No. 902 of 2014. 4. Having perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that the challenge to the Circular made in this petition cannot be sustained. If that be the position, what remains in these instant writ petitions for consideration is with regard to sale notices which have been questioned by the petitioners. As noticed the sale notices are dated 16-4-2010, 29-10-2009 and 3-12-2009 respectively. 5. This Court at the first instance while issuing notices to the respondents had granted interim stay of the sale notices. If that be the position, what remains in these instant writ petitions for consideration is with regard to sale notices which have been questioned by the petitioners. As noticed the sale notices are dated 16-4-2010, 29-10-2009 and 3-12-2009 respectively. 5. This Court at the first instance while issuing notices to the respondents had granted interim stay of the sale notices. If that be the position, the sale as proposed under the impugned notices has not taken place and in any event if the matter is not amicably resolved between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2, it is only there after that respondents 2 and 3 would have to reinitiate process of the sale of the property to recover the amount due to them. In that view it is unnecessary for this Court to retain these petitions on Board. 6. The petitioners are therefore, granted liberty for making appropriate representations to respondents 1 and 2 seeking to amicably settle the matter in the manner as proposed by them to respondents 1 and 2. If such representations are made by the petitioners the respondents 1 and 2 shall take note of the same, consider the same in accordance with law and intimate the result of such consideration to the petitioners. It is needless to say if in the such process the matter is not amicably resolved between the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2, the respondents 1 and 2 shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law in respect of the same. All the contentions between the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 are kept open to be considered if need arises at appropriate stage. In terms of the above these writ petitions stand disposed of.