AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—In this writ petition, the Petitioner is challenging the auction Notification dated 29.12.2010 issued by the second Respondent published in Vijaya Karnataka Kannada daily Newspaper bringing the residential house of the Petitioner for sale for realisation of the loan advanced to the third Respondent. Petitioner is the guarantor. As the third Respondent has failed to discharge the loan, the property in question owned by the Petitioner, which is the subject matter of security for the repayment of loan, is brought for sale. The date of auction is fixed on 20.1.2011.
The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that by virtue of the order at Annexure-F passed by the State Government dated 30.6.2010, the period for repayment by availing the benefit of one-time settlement scheme, has been extended till 31.3.2011 and therefore, the said benefit under the said scheme as per Government Order No. F.D.56.BFC.2009 dated 26.9.2009 as extended on 30.6.2010 is available to the Petitioner, But, ignoring the same, the property of the Petitioner Is brought for sale, which is illegal.
This contention is strongly refuted by Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2. He has brought to the notice of the Court the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. 5249/10 disposed of on 19.2.2010 contending that, the benefit of the order at Annexure-F is not available to the Petitioner as the Petitioner has given assurance to this Court in the course of previous proceedings along with Respondent No. 3 herein that they would clear the entire loan amount before 31.3.2010 and it is on that basis that this Court had passed an order making it clear that the Respondent -Corporation shall have to wait till 31.3.2010 for taking coercive steps against the Petitioner and the third Respondent herein.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the respective contentions, I find that the benefit of the One-time Settlement Scheme is no doubt extended till 31.3.11. However, the fact remains that the Petitioner had given an undertaking before this Court assuring that he along with the third Respondent would discharge the loan on or before 31.3.10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that on account of certain unforeseen difficulties, the Petitioner could not adhere to the time schedule and discharge the obligation. He requests for grant of some time to pay off the loan as otherwise the Petitioner would be deprived of the residential house which is the subject matter of mortgage. The Petitioner is also present before the Court.
On instructions from the Petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for him submits that his client will deposit a sum of `50,000/- before the first Respondent by tomorrow (20.1.2011). He further assures that the remaining amount will be paid within a period of four weeks from today.
Having regard to this submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the presence of the Petitioner and keeping in mind the Government decision taken vide Annexure-F, I deem it just and appropriate to accede to the request made by the Petitioner.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of recording the undertaking given by the Petitioner to pay a sum of `50,000/- by tomorrow (20.1.2011) to the first Respondent and the balance amount within a period of 4 weeks from today.
The Respondent - Corporation shall defer the auction proceedings if the Petitioner deposits the sum of `50,000/-by 3.00 p.m. tomorrow (20.1.2011) and give four weeks'' time to the Petitioner to clear off the dues. If the Petitioner fails to clear off the dues within the said time, the Respondent - Corporation will be at liberty to proceed with the sale of the property for realisation of the dues.