Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 2002 inter alia with the prayer that the auction notice issued by the respondent -bank dated 11.4.2002 be quashed and set aside. The facts of the case are that the respondent -bank advanced a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 to the petitioner for purchase of truck in the year 1998. The truck met with an accident on 23.7.1999. Petitioner intimated this fact to the respondent -bank on 30.7.1999. The truck of the petitioner again met with an accident on 17.12.1999. This fact was again brought to the notice of the respondent -bank by the petition on 20.12.1999. The claim of the petitioner for Rs. 40,500 was allowed by the United Insurance Company for the damaged caused to the truck. Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000 with the respondent -bank on 5.10.2001 and thereafter Rs. 5,000 on 8.11.2001 and thereafter Rs. 35,000 on 21.2.2002. The truck again met with an accident on 6.4.2002. Again the petitioner conveyed this fact to the bank on 9.4.2002. Respondent proceeded to auction the truck for default of the petitioner in not paying the loan. This Court by order dated 30.4.2002 while issuing notice of the writ petition directed that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 5,00,000, the truck may not be auctioned.
(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amount was not deposited that time and thereafter petitioner has not contacted the counsel. Learned counsel therefore submitted that even though truck has been auctioned, the respondents ought not to charge compound interest as there was no such stipulation in the agreement of loan. In support of his arguments, learned counsel cited the judgement Karnataka High Court in Syndicate Bank vs. Mahalaxmi Ginning Factory & Anr., : AIR 2005 Kant 5.
(3.) No one has appeared to oppose the writ petition.;