Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 395 (KAR)

INDIRA G. , W/O GANESHAN. R. v. K. MURALI KRISHNA

2017-02-08

A.S.BOPANNA

body2017
ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court assailing the entire sale proceedings in respect of the petition subject property as had been initiated and concluded by respondents No. 3 and 4. The petition subject property was standing in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have executed a sale deed dated 24.04.2010 in favour of respondent No.1. In the said transaction for purchase of the property, respondents No. 3 and 4 are stated to have advanced the loan. In view of the default said to have been committed by respondents No.1 in respect of repayment of the loan, respondents No. 3 and 4 initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act (‘the Act’) by invoking Sections 13 and 14 of the Act. At the first instance, the matter was agitated by respondent No.1 herein before the DRT by filing a proceedings in I.R.No.102/2013. The said proceedings came to a conclusion through the order dated 04.04.2014 where under the DRT had accepted submission of the respondents therein that the petition had rendered itself in fructuous. The petitioner herein however contends that the position as recorded therein is not the correct position inasmuch as in the said proceedings, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- had been deposited through the interim order and since the sale deed executed by the petitioner to respondent No.1 is only a nominal sale deed, the right of the petitioner to the petition schedule property still subsists and as such, the said right of the petitioner is required to be protected. In that regard, it is contended that the subsequent action initiated by respondents No. 3 and 4 in bringing the property to sale and issue of sale certificate as at Annexure-S is not justified. Hence, it is contended that the entire proceedings is required to be set aside. The respondents have filed their objection statement disputing the contention that is put forth by the petitioner. Insofar as the loan transaction, it is pointed out that the loan was advanced to respondent No.1 and since the amount had not been repaid, the action in accordance with law has been initiated. It is pointed out that the earlier proceedings before the DRT which had been rendered itself in fructuous was a proceedings which was initiated by respondent No.1 and therefore the petitioner cannot make out any grievance with regard to the same. It is pointed out that the earlier proceedings before the DRT which had been rendered itself in fructuous was a proceedings which was initiated by respondent No.1 and therefore the petitioner cannot make out any grievance with regard to the same. Hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. In the light of the contentions put forth, at the outset, it is to be noticed that even if the grievance as put forth by the petitioner that the right in respect of the property which had been brought to sale had remained with the petitioner notwithstanding the execution of the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1, is taken note, the said contentions in any event cannot be appreciated in a writ petition of the present nature. If at all the petitioner is to put forth such contention and as a consequence of the same is to assail the further action that has been taken by respondents No. 3 and 4 by invoking the power available under the Act, the petitioner can only assail the same by filing an appeal as provided in Section 17 of the Act since the provision provides that any person aggrieved by such action can file the appeal. Hence, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file the appeal. Needless to mention that in view of the time limit provided under the said provision to file the appeal, it would be open for the petitioner to explain the steps that had been taken by the petitioner, the pendency of this petition and in that light seek for condonation of delay, which would be considered by the DRT in accordance with law. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.