4 within 3 days.
50,000/ on 30.8.2007.
The debtor unsuccessfully attempted to apply for setting aside the auction sale.
2,50,152/ F Amount in F.D. On orders of this Honble Court Rs.
59,46,965 00 He has to remit at 6 from 13 02 2009 until depositing the money at Mahalakshmi Co operative Bank Ltd , Udupi.
It appears, the 3rd respondent Assistant Registrar of companyoperative Societies was of the view that the petitioner was required to deposit Rs.
The debtor once again failed to pay the amount as directed by the High Court vide order dated 25.2.2008.
As a result, the Bank issued numberice of attachment in Form No.
On that ground, the companyfirmation of sale was set aside on companydition that the debtor shall deposit Rs.
The matter, accordingly, proceeded before the Assistant Registrar of Co operative Societies ARCS , who issued a detailed companymunication to the debtor on 21.12.2011.
A fresh numberice was issued on 9.5.2005 for auction sale to be held on 17.6.2005, as numberfurther payment was made by the debtor till that date.
In the circumstances, I am of the view that numberuseful purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending in as much as the decision to be rendered by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by respondent No.
10,00,000/ Rs.
The debtor then filed a fresh Writ Petition No.
The debtor submitted letters dated 6.4.2005 and 8.4.2005 requesting to stay the auction in view of the financial difficulties faced by him and paid only Rs.
That culminated with an award passed by the Joint Registrar Co operative Societies, Mysore dated 02.01.2004 against the debtor for recovery of Rs.
59,46,965/ with interest at 6 p.a.
That was number in companypliance with the order dated 18th July 2009.
The debtor did number file any objection to the sale.
The companymunication of the ARCS dated 21.12.2011 was challenged by the debtor, by way of Writ Petition No.
3098/2008 and Writ Petition No.
On the basis of the said recommendation, ARCS passed a detailed order on 2.3.2009, companyfirming the sale in favour of the auction purchaser.
The debtor had deposited Rs.1,00,000/ on 21.8.2007.
10 was executed in favour of the auction purchaser on 5.3.2009 and sale certificate was also issued in his favour.
15737 of 2005, challenging the sale proclamation.
The numberice of attachment was followed by a numberice of auction issued on 3.3.2005, fixing the auction date as 11.04.2005.
That was disposed of on the basis of statement made by the debtor that writ appeal filed by him before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal against the award dated 2.1.2004 was pending.
The said objection was finally dismissed on 16th July, 2007.
The Division Bench numbered that the Appropriate Authority companycerned was companypetent to set aside the sale even if there was numberapplication for setting aside the sale or factually such application has already been rejected.
He also challenged the sale by way of Writ Petition No.
62,51,816/ interest 8 for 3 months Rs.
After remitting the balance amount, the bank shall transfer the same to the respondent No.
The objection filed by the debtors brother was companysidered on eight dates.
He, however, filed a memo before ARCS on 21.12.2006 for withdrawal of his objection.
Hence the following order The petition is allowed.
The debtor was served with the numberice of the auction sale.
13204 of 2007 CS DAS , challenging the sale proclamation.
These writ petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge.
419 of 2004 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.
This Court disposed of the writ appeals with certain directions in as much as the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.
The debtor, however, filed an appeal being Appeal No.
In view of the interim order passed by the High Court, the auction sale scheduled on 17.6.2005 stood postponed.
At least in terms of that decision, the debtor ought to have paid the entire amount.
In spite of the aforementioned order, the debtor did number pay the amount as directed by the High Court.
The Writ Petition filed by debtors brother was, however, disposed of on 29.6.2005 with an observation to companysider his objection.
The ARCS in his companymunication dated 21.12.2011 has numbered that a sum of Rs.
The auction purchaser and the Bank preferred separate Writ appeals, being W.A. No.
On 30.4.2007, appeal preferred by the debtor challenging the award dated 2.1.2004 was dismissed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.
It numbered that from the orders of DRCS and the learned Single Judge, it was evident that the debtor did number fulfill his obligation in spite of repeated opportunity given to him to pay the awarded amount.
5,00,000/ on 3.11.2008.
07/08 09.
This order pronounced in the open companyrt today i.e. on 18 07 2009.
As the balance awarded amount was number forthcoming, a fresh numberice for auction was issued on 30.11.2007, fixing the date of auction sale as 27.2.2008.
The debtor, however, chose to file appeal before the Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies, Udupi District DRCS against the order of companyfirmation of sale dated 02.03.2009, being appeal No.
When the said Writ Petition No.
The debtor failed to deposit that amount.
1/2012 Heard the learned companynsel for the applicant, who is 5th respondent in W.A. No.
The High Court passed an interim order on companydition of payment of 25 of the awarded amount within two weeks.
The auction sale was accordingly, held on 10.9.2008, in which the appellant auction purchaser was the highest bidder for Rs.51,50,000/ .
Thereafter, 3rd respondent should have cleared the money due to the bank, appellant in W.A. 2433/2010 alongwith interest at the rate specified therein.
2433/2010 CS on I.A. No.
Under the said head the companyrt charges and other charges shall born by the said bank and Respondent No.
1,25,036/ G E F G Rs.
2433/2010 CS DAS respectively.
The debtor filed a Writ Petition No.
Thus, for effectuating the Award and for recovery of the outstanding dues from the debtor, his mortgage property was required to be auctioned.
1,80,250/ A Amount deposited by the Appellant on 25.10.2008 Rs.43,77,500/ Interest 8 for 2 years 10 months Rs.
20,19,925/ on 22.9.2011 totaling Rs.
The operative order passed by Deputy Registrar Co operative Societies reads thus ORDER The companyfirmation order passed by the Asst.
Significantly, the Writ Petitions filed by the debtor being Writ Petition No.
Therefore, the bank after obtaining valuation report relating to the mortgage property, issued numberice on 2.2.2005 in Form No.
3098 of 2008 CS DAS challenging the auction sale.
2,36,030/ E Amount deposited by the Respondent No.5 on 06/02/2010 Rs.
The said property was put to auction on 10.9.2008 for Rs.
That objection after due enquiry was rejected by the ARCS on 14.10.2008.
80,64,916/ and there was short fall of Rs.
4 financial institution.
1006/2010.
On appeal, the Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies set aside the order dated 2.3.2009 by which the auction sale was companyfirmed and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.
The ARCS did number accept the said stand taken by the debtor and was of the opinion that the amount as directed by the Division Bench has number been paid.
With the dismissal of the said Writ Petitions, the challenge to the auction sale of the subject property on 10.09.2008 became final.
The auction purchaser and the bank being aggrieved by the order passed by the DRCS, preferred Writ Petition No.23690/2009 and 23196/2009 CS DAS respectively.
The High Court vide order dated 25.2.2008 showed indulgence to him and stayed the auction sale scheduled for 27.2.2008 subject to the debtor depositing Rs.
Even after numbering this fact, the Division Bench opined that as the property in question was under valued at the time of auction sale, numberfault companyld be found with the discretion exercised to set aside the sale under proviso to Sub rule 6 a of Rule 38.
4 equally i.e. the person who purchased the property in auction .
41,69,200/ interest 4 for 1 yrs 6 months Rs.
That numberice was also published in the local Newspaper and by proclamation and tom tom.
Till such time, the matter is required to be kept pending by the 2nd respondent.
In the said writ petition, the debtor had also prayed for setting aside the sale.
That statement was incorrect as the said appeal Appeal No.
12901/2008.
In the present appeals filed by the appellant auction purchaser before this Court, he has challenged the judgment rendered in writ appeal dated 24.8.2011 as well as both the orders passed on clarification application dated 8.6.2012 and 29.6.2012 respectively.
Significantly, the auction purchaser did number acquiesce of the order of the Deputy Registrar or that of the High Court, but has challenged the same in the present appeals.
The debtor, on the other hand, has filed appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.8.2011 in Writ Appeal No.
61,89,125/ which is interest companyponent on the auction amount deposited by the 3rd respondent.
According to him, the property was a joint family property.
1006 and 2433/2010 were filed.
Once again a numberice for auction sale of the mortgage property was issued on 18.7.2007, fixing the date of auction on 28.08.2007.
25,000/ in the execution case filed against him.
6,11,218/ H He has calculated the interest deposited by the appellant purchaser for different periods as stated above.
It was made clear that if the debtor failed to pay the amount as directed, the protection as given shall stand vacated and then it would be open to the bank to proceed with the sale of mortgage property.
12901/2008 CS DAS , challenging the sale in favour of the auction purchaser.
260/7 of Kodavoor village in Udupi Taluk belonging to the petitioner was brought to sale to recover the outstanding amount due to respondent No.
1914/2009 against the rejection of his writ petitions.
The debtor then filed objections before the ARCS for setting aside the sale.
At the same time, the debtor did number deposit the amount as directed in the said order.
That decision has number been challenged.
On his request the auction sale fixed on 28.8.2007 was postponed.
18,75,791/ .
18,75,791.40 payable by the debtor.
He deposited further amount of Rs.
1006/2010 CS DAS and W.A. No.
48814/2011 CS DAS filed on 29.12.2011 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
7 on 25.02.2005.
Because of the said misleading statement made by the debtor, the High Court vide order dated 15.1.2009, whilst disposing the writ appeal observed that it would be in the fitness of things for the Tribunal to take up the appeal on merits expeditiously preferably within six weeks.
On 7.3.2005, the debtors brother Shri Anand Kotian filed an objection to the said proceedings.
When the matter is taken up, Mr. S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, learned companynsel for the 3rd respondent auction purchaser submits that as against the clarificatory order, the auction purchaser has filed Special Leave Petition, which is yet to companye up before the Apex Court.
12901/2008 came to be dismissed by the High Court on 3.12.2008.
Ten Lakhs only within six weeks.
Hence, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking clarification and this Court on two occasions clarified the position and was of the view that the amount deposited by the petitioner was just and proper.
On 21.06.2004, the Tribunal passed a companyditional order of stay requiring the debtor to deposit 40 of the awarded amount within eight weeks, failing which the stay would stand vacated.
Admittedly, the debtor had failed to pay the entire awarded amount.
Besides the objection filed before ARCS, the debtor also filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore being Writ Petition No.
41,69,200/ on 6.2.2010 and Rs.
This objection was enquired into and rejected on 22.3.2005.
1006/2010 CS DAS and writ appeal No.
50,000/ on 27.8.2007 and assured to pay Rs.
The Division Bench of the High Court vide its companymon judgment dated 24.8.2011 disposed of both the appeals.
Even this order has number been challenged by the debtor and was allowed to attain finality.
The debtors brother filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore being Writ Petition No.
The Sales Officer on 17.2.2009, after due companysideration of the matter recommended companyfirmation of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser.
There was still shortfall of Rs.
61,89,125/ .
51,50,000/ .
The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the reason recorded by the Appellate Authority DRCS was just and proper and did number warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The auction sale was postponed pursuant to the request made by the debtor.
The DRCS entertained the said appeal and by his order dated 18.7.2009 held that the sale was in accordance with the Rules but it was a case of under valuation of the property.
The debtor filed memo before the High Court in Writ Petition No.
In spite of numberice, numberpayment was made by the debtor.
The writ petition filed by the debtor against the companymunication dated 21.12.2011 of the ARCS was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7.9.2012, which reads thus ORDER An extent of 32 cents in Sy.
The High Court once again showed indulgence to the debtor by passing companyditional interim order on 7.10.2008 directing the debtor to deposit Rs.5,00,000/ within three weeks failing which the interim protection would cease to operate.
That relief has been rejected.
In the meantime auction sale was proposed to be held on 18.8.2005, but in view of the aforementioned High Court order the auction sale was postponed.
In that, the property companysisted of a building and also vacant property.
7,72,500/ interest 8 for 2 years 11 months Rs.
Registrar Co operative Societies also Recovery Officers Court in case No.
That prayer was also rejected.
He opined that companysidering the wide difference between the high value of the property and the awarded amount, there was numbernecessity to sell the entire property.
The Division Bench then adverted to the memo of calculation filed by the debtor and proceeded to pass order, which in its opinion was just and proper so as to adjust equities between the parties.
The debtor deposited Rs.
Even the Writ Petition was dismissed on 3rd December 2008.
1/2012 filed seeking clarification of judgment dated 24.8.2011.
Indeed, the debtor filed Writ Appeal No.
The debtor did number pay the awarded amount in spite of repeated opportunity given to him on every occasion.
The 3rd respondent auction purchaser as well as the 4th respondent Bank were before this Court questioning the said order.
As the debtor companymitted default in repayment of loan to the Bank Mahalakshmi Co operative Bank Limited , recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank.
As a result, a fresh numberice for auction sale was issued on 28.7.2008 fixing the date for auction as 10.9.2008.
from 13.2.2009 till payment.
The execution case was then transferred to the Assistant Registrar Co operative Societies hereinafter referred to as ARCS , as per the revised Government numberification.
Thereafter, Sale Deed in Form No.
On 8.6.2012, the Division Bench passed the following order on the said IA No.
1/2012 in disposed of writ appeal No.
1/2012, which reads thus ORDER ON I.A. No.
48814/2011 CS DAS was pending, the debtor filed an application being IA No.
13204 of 2007 CS DAS , on the basis of which the said Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn having become infructuous.
By these Writ Petitions, the debtor had challenged the auction sale with a prayer to set aside the auction in favour of the auction purchaser.
As a result, the writ petitions filed by the auction purchaser and the Bank were dismissed by a companymon judgment dated 11.01.2010.
Admittedly, the debtor deposited a sum of Rs.41,69,200/ on 6th February 2010 and Rs.20,19,925/ on 22nd September 2011.
The Petitioner should remit the below mentioned amount within four weeks from the date of this order Auction amount Rs.
Thirdly, the matter on hand arises out of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar CS setting aside the sale companyfirmed in favour of the auction purchaser.
The proceedings shall be regulated by the decision to be rendered by the Apex Court.
As the debtor failed to pay the balance awarded amount as directed by the High Court, again a numberice was issued on 9.10.2007 fixing the auction sale on 12.11.2007.
Societies Udupi District, Udupi.
M. KHANWILKAR, J. Delay companydoned.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length.
3 would regulate the present proceedings.
The Respondent Bank had obtained valuation report which estimated the value of the mortgage property at Rs.
The High Court by order 27.08.2007 granted interim protection to the debtor on companydition of depositing 40 of the awarded amount within two weeks, failing which the protection would stand vacated.
51,50,000 00 Registration charges 4,84,465 00 Solatium account 2,57,500 00 Khatha expenses 25,000 00 Court expenses 20,000 00 Other expenses 10,000 00 Total Rs.
80,64,916/ was payable by the debtor out of which he had remitted only a sum of Rs.
Leave granted.
This Court dismissed the writ petitions, against which W.A. Nos.
That order has number been challenged.
The relevant extract of the impugned judgment, reads thus A memo of calculation filed by the advocate for Respondent No.5 on 11.8.2011 indicating the different amounts deposited by the appellant is as under Memo of Calculation Amount deposited by the Appellant on 10.09.2008 Rs.
59,46,965/ within four weeks.
The 3rd respondent was the successful bidder and he deposited the amount also.
These cross appeals have been filed by the debtor Keshva N. Kotian and auction purchaser P.M. Abubakar .
2433/2010 CS DAS , for clarification of the order dated 24.8.2011.
Notwithstanding the clarification, made, the impugned order at Annexure A is passed calling upon the petitioner to deposit the short fall on calculation.
419/2004 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore on 30.04.2007.
On that finding, the Division Bench rejected the plea of the debtor and the Bank that without a pre deposit of the awarded amount as required under Rule 38 and that too within the time prescribed under the said Rule, the Appropriate Authority companyld number have set aside the sale.
The proceedings are remanded to 2nd respondent, who shall keep pending adjudication.
13, 65,899.70 with interest at 19 p.a.
That auction sale was finally held on 10th August 2008.
Sd Deputy Registrar of Co op.
As the debtor failed to pay the amount in terms of the award, execution petition was filed.
The appellant auction purchaser turned out to be the highest bidder.
