K. VIRUPAKSHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(SC)-2020-3-21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 03,2020

K. Virupaksha Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

M. L. GANESH VS. CA V. VENKATA SIVA KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2020-9-812] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAK ARTS AND ORS VS. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-9-271] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIKANTHA GOPAL MANDYAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-128] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH S/O RAMDAS KAMAT VS. INDIAN BANK [LAWS(KAR)-2021-9-219] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL DEVAKINANDAN ZAWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-9-54] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.S.BOPANNA,J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellants herein were the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.100323/2018 which was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench through the order dated 21.01.2019. The said order was passed by the High Court while considering the petition filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking that the order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC in PC No. 389/2016 referring the matter for investigation and consequential registration of FIR in Crime No. 152/2016 by the Hubballi SubUrban Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 511, 109, 34, 120B, 406, 409, 420, 405, 417 and 426 of IPC be quashed. In the said proceedings the appellants herein are arrayed as Accused Nos. 9 and 11 respectively. The appellants herein were at the relevant point in time working as the Deputy General Managers in the Canara Bank (Accused No.1), Circle Office at Hubbali, Karnataka.
(3.)The brief facts leading to the present situation is that the respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant') had approached the Canara Bank at Hubballi pursuant to which credit facilities were sanctioned on 16.03.2009. The total credit facility sanctioned amounted to Rs.2.68 crores. The property bearing Survey No. 213/2002 situated at Anchatageri Village, Hubballi measuring 3 acres 2 Guntas was offered as security for the said loan and a charge was created. The said property is hereinafter referred to as the 'Secured Asset'. As per the case of Canara Bank, the Complainant had not repaid the loan amount and in that view having committed default, the account of the Complainant was classified as 'NonPerforming Asset' ('NPA' for short) on 15.01.2013. The Canara Bank thus having invoked the power under Section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short) had issued appropriate notices and ultimately the possession of the secured asset as contemplated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was taken on 22.03.2013. The secured asset was thereafter evaluated and was brought to auction through the public notice dated 13.10.2013 indicating the date of auction as 15.11.2013. The reserve price of the secured asset was fixed at Rs.2,28,51,000/. Though publication was made, no bids were received in the auction proposed on 15.11.2013 and since the same was a public holiday declared in the State of Karnataka the auction was postponed to 04.12.2013. Even on the said date no bids were received.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.