Karnataka High Court
WP/35918/2024 of SMT VASANTHA B R Vs RAMEGOWDA on 31 December 2024
2024:KHC:53339 WP No. 35918 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35918 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. VASANTHA B.R, W/O ANIL KUMAR C.A. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT
Digitally signedby SHWETHARAGHAVENDRALocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ -WRIT PETITION NO. 35918 OF 2024 (GMRES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VASANTHA B.R, W/O ANIL KUMAR C.A. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, CHANMALAPURA, MANDYA - 571 450.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMEGOWDA, S/O CHIAKKAHAIDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT BELEKERE VILLAGE, MUDAGERE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGAR TALUK - 562 160.
2. SAMPATH KUMAR R, S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT BELEKERE VILLAGE, MUDAGERE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGAR TALUK - 562 160.
3. SANTHOSH B.R,
S/O RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT BELEKERE VILLAGE, MUDAGERE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGAR TALUK - 562 160.
4. CAN FIN HOMES LTD (CFHL), REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NO.29/1, III FLOOR, SIR M.N. KRISHNA RAO ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICED DATED 05/11/2024 AT ANN-F ISSUED BY R4 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
1. Notice to respondents 1 to 3 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.
2. What is challenged in the present writ petition is the notice issued under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Though the said notice has not been issued to the petitioner, the same has been affixed on the property and the petitioner also claims to be a legal heir of late Vimala, who had mortgaged the property. If that be so, it is always available for the petitioner to reply to the said notice, which would have to be considered by respondent No.4. It is needless to say that until the reply is considered, necessary orders are passed under sub-section (3) of Section 13 SARFAESI Act, no coercive steps should be taken.
3. Petitioner is granted 10 days time to reply to the impugned notice at Annexure-F dated 05.11.2024, which shall be considered by the 4[th] respondent within a period of three weeks thereafter.
4. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.
SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
NG,List No.: 2 Sl No.: 47 CT: BHK