Writ Appeal No. 741 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB W.A. No.741/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO.741 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED
Legal Reasoning
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDIAN RAYON COMPOUND VERAVAL, GUJARAT 362 266 THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. AKASH NA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS HAVING HIS OFFICES AT ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED, NO.1/78 STAR AVENUE, 6TH CROSS SRI. THYAGI M. PALANIVELU RD VICTORIA LAYOUT, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 025. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. AHAAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: 1. SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.40 LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 027 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB W.A. No.741/2025 REPRESENTED BY MR. K.R. RAVISHANKAR. 2. BODY SCULPT HEALTH CLUB PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICES AT 40/1 2ND FLOOR, CENTURY CORBEL SAHAKARANAGAR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 092 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. K.R. RAVISHANKAR. 3. ARIA BREW AND DINE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS OFFICES AT 40/1 CENTURY CORBEL COMMERCIAL SAHAKARANAGAR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 092 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. K.R. RAVISHANKAR. 4. MR. K.R. RAVISHANKAR SON OF KONENAHALLI REDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.824, 24 MAIN ROAD OPP. BATA SHOWROOM, J.P. NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560 078. 5. MS. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR WIFE OF K.R. RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.824, 24 MAIN ROAD OPP. BATA SHOWROOM, J.P. NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560078. 6. MR. AMIT RAVISHANKAR GOWDA S/O K.R. RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. No.824, 24TH MAIN ROAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB W.A. No.741/2025 OPP. BATA SHOWROOM J.P. NAGAR 2ND PHASE BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560078. 7. MR. ADIT R. GOWDA S/O K.R. RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT. No.40, LALBAGH ROAD URVASHI THEATRE BANGALORE SOUTH WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VACHAN H.U. ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL. SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02/05/2025 IN WP NO.11951/2025 AND GRANT SUCH FURTHER AND OTHER RELIEF'S AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) This appeal is filed against the order of the Single Judge wherein this court in W.P.No.11951/2025 having - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB W.A. No.741/2025 taken note of the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel that going to make the payment of Rs.75,00,000/- to the Bank by way of demand draft and would undertake to pay Rs.50,00,000/- each at different intervals in the month of June or July as the case would be in the light of the talks of settlement between the parties in all 11 occasions being undertaken and though it comes to the conclusion deemed it appropriate to grant one last stop opportunity to the petitioner to clear the loan amount, now notwithstanding the vehement opposition of the learned Senior counsel for the respondent and directed to pay an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- and also file an affidavit of timeline of clearance of the loan amount of Rs.22,00,00,000/-, by the next date of hearing, this order has been challenged before this court. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the very appellant is a private concern and even Writ Petition is not maintainable and the Counsel would submits that the proceedings is initiated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB W.A. No.741/2025 under the SARFAESI Act and the respondent can avail the remedy under Section 17 of the Act and the Counsel would submit that the single bench committed an error in only directing to make the payment of Rs.75,00,000/- as against the amount of Rs.22,00,00,000/- and counsel also would submits that let the action be go on and if the respondent makes any arrangements of clearing the loan amount or making any payment of 50% amount in the first week of June-2025, going to consider the same and not going to confirm the sale and if such effort is made, the same will be considered. 3. Per contra, the counsel of appearing to the respondent also would submit that earlier also several meetings were held and an attempt was made and not having that much of amount to clear the same. The counsel would submit that let the appellant go on with sale and not to confirm the sale and going to make efforts to make the substantial payment if two weeks time is granted. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB W.A. No.741/2025 4. Having considered the respective submissions of the appellant’s counsel as well as counsel for the respondent and also having considered the material on record the claim of the appellant is Rs.22,00,00,000/- and the Single Bench Judge gave an opportunity to the respondent to make the payment of only Rs.75,00,000/- as against the amount of Rs.22,00,00,000/-. When such being the case and the same is nothing but a peanut and as contended by the counsel appearing for the appellant that it is only a 4% as against the claim of the appellant and hence such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, however, taking into note of submission of appellant’s counsel as well as counsel for the respondent, even if any sale takes place, since already proceedings has been initiated to conduct the sale and in view of the submission of the appellant also, they are not going to confirm the sale, if any substantial payment is made within two weeks from today not less than 50%, the liberty is given to the respondent to make such payment and the appellant cannot wait for clearance of the amount for longer period, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18226-DB W.A. No.741/2025 let him make the substantial payment of 50% within two weeks and seek for another additional two months for remaining payment, if no such payment is made, the appellant is given liberty to proceed in accordance with
Decision
law. With this observation Writ Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34