Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
M/S. SLN GAJA INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTING OF TWO PARTNERS MR. G.LOKESH AND MRS.R.VEENA – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER ARM BRANCH-II – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. parties' arguments regarding the nature of the land. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the agricultural status of the land. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. principle regarding the burden of proof in the identification of agricultural land. (Para 14) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of the petition. (Para 15) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, the borrowers are at the doors of this Court calling in question the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I (for short ‘the DRT’) in S.A.No.265/2024 dated 24.02.2025, by which, challenge to the auction notification of the first respondent-Bank by the petitioners comes to be turned down.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Rajendra M.A. for petitioners, learned counsel Sri.Vignesh S. Shetty for respondent No.1 and Sri.Arjun Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioners are the borrowers; borrow finance from Canara Bank by mortgage of the scheduled properties. The averment in the petition is, all the properties mortgaged are agricultural lands.
4. The petitioner defaults in making the payment for three consecutive months. The ac
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
