Skip to content


Francis Xavier Vs. State Bank of India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 36417 of 2016 (GM-Res)
Judge
AppellantFrancis Xavier
RespondentState Bank of India
Excerpt:
.....was before this court, this court at the first instance had granted the interim order. 3. the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in view of the same sale has not taken place. though the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent have filed a memo before this court today along with the documents where under the respondent contends that the petitioner has thereafter mortgaged the property in favour of the g.i.c. housing finance limited, in any event the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent being earlier, it is a matter for them to resolve amongst themselves. 4. therefore, at this juncture when the sale has not taken place, the instant petition is rendered infructuous. hence, there is no purpose in retaining.....
Judgment:

1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the sale notice dated 25.5.2016 published in the newspaper on 26.5.2016 as at Annexure 'A' to the petition.

2. In spite of certain financial assistance obtained by the petitioner from the respondent - Bank, the respondent - bank, the respondent had treated the same as Non-performing asset (NPA) and thereafter had initiated action under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner at that point, when a sale notice was published as at Annexure 'A' has approached this Court assailing the same. In the petition, the petitioner also referred to One Time Settlement which was sought to be availed by the petitioner. Be that as it may when the petitioner was before this Court, this Court at the first instance had granted the interim order.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that in view of the same sale has not taken place. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent have filed a memo before this Court today along with the documents where under the respondent contends that the petitioner has thereafter mortgaged the property in favour of the G.I.C. Housing Finance Limited, in any event the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent being earlier, it is a matter for them to resolve amongst themselves.

4. Therefore, at this juncture when the sale has not taken place, the instant petition is rendered infructuous. Hence, there is no purpose in retaining the petition on record. Before any further action is taken by the respondent, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the respondent - Bank and put forth any such proposal for settlement and thereafter depending on the same further action shall be taken.

Reserving such liberty, petition stands disposed of.

Petition disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //