Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Silktex Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India, Represented by its Managing Director, Mumbai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the letter SBI/SAMB/LCLO-5/SILKTEX/2020-21/203 dated 08.09.2020-Annexure-Y issued by R2;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order and direct the Respondent Bank to refund the excess amount of Rs.4,05,93,277/- along with interest & damages to the Petitioner.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order and direct the Respondent Bank to compensate the Petitioner for missing inventories.
iv. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner claims to be a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, being in the business of manufacturing and exporting silk-blended fabrics and apparel. The Petitioner had availed of financial facilities from the overseas branch of Respondent No. 1, State Bank of India, as regards which the Petitioner had mortgaged immovable properties owned by the company in favour of the Respondent Bank, as also hypothecated certain plant and machinery.
3. The Petitioner was unable to repay the amount in favour
A bank cannot proceed with auction proceedings after issuing a one-time settlement proposal unless it has revoked the proposal and the acceptance period has expired.
Debt Recovery and Monetary Laws - Bank - Loan - Mortgaged properties - Where public money is involved, a Writ Court has to assume a realistic role of a trustee in ensuring that public money is not lo....
The court emphasized the need for justifiable actions by the bank in the auction process and the importance of compliance with the SARFAESI Act provisions.
The duty of a litigant to disclose all material facts and the bank's right to protect its recovery were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Auction sale under SARFAESI Act upheld; simultaneous civil proceedings do not invalidate the completed transaction, and allegations of undervaluation found unsubstantiated.
The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the need for exhaustion of statutory remedies.
The borrower's right to redeem the mortgage continues until the sale certificate is issued, and the OTS Policy applies retroactively, preventing the bank from proceeding with the sale.
Point of Law : IT IS THE SOLEMN DUTY OF THE COURT TO APPLY THE CORRECT LAW WITHOUT WAITING FOR AN OBJECTION TO BE RAISED BY A PARTY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LAW STANDS WELL SETTLED.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
