Karnataka High Court Grants Relief to Senior Citizen in Loan Guarantee Case

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

On 3rd August 2020, Justice G. Narendar heard the case of Smt Lakshmamma & Anr V. Pheonix Arc Pvt Ltd, via video-conferencing. The Court granted relief to the petitioners as the loan amount was paid by Respondent No .2 company by selling off the commercial property. Hence, the residential property of the Petitioner No. 1 was saved from getting disposed of due to non-payment of the loan.

Facts of the Case 

The petitioner and respondents belong to the same family. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent can be stated as follows:

  1. Petitioner No. 1 is a widow and a senior citizen.
  2. Petitioner No. 2 is the daughter in law of Petitioner No.1.
  3. Respondent 3 is the son in law of petitioner No. 1
  4. Respondent No. 4 is the daughter of petitioner No.1 and wife of Respondent No. 3.

Petitioner No. 1 is a guarantor to the loan advanced to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 has defaulted in repayment of the loan. Respondent No. 3 and 4 are partners of Respondent No. 2. They have defaulted in repayment of the loan. The residential property of petitioner No. 1 was kept as security for the loan advanced.

Respondent No. 1 initiated action and took physical possession of the property. That possession covers 10% of the outstanding loan amount. The Respondent No.1 proceeds to sell the property of the Petitioner No.1.

Petitioner No.1 gave a representation to Respondent No.1 to proceed against the borrower property first. The borrower’s property is commercial property. The commercial property is enough to fetch the loan amount. Petitioner No. 1 also filed a writ of mandamus seeking the directions to respondent No. 1.

As per the court’s compliance, Respondent No.1 issued notice to Respondent No. 2 to deposit a sum of 10% of the reserve price. The writ of mandamus stated that petitioner’s submission is in favour of the petitioner as well as the company. 

Arguments of the Petitioners

The learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that Petitioner No. 2 is ready to deposit the balance amount. But petitioner No. 2 is unable to do so in view of the interim order.

Arguments of the Respondents

The learned counsel for the Respondent argues that Petitioner No. 2 is willing to deposit the balance amount on the present day. The sale of the property is confirmed in favour of Petitioner No. 2. Respondent No.1 should be permitted to refund the amount received from the highest bidder of the property. 

Court’s Analysis

The writ petition disposes of by placing a record of the learned counsel of Petitioner.

Court’s Decision

The court directed Respondent No. 1 to receive a balance of amount ₹1,12,76,000. Respondent No. 1 receives the amount if it is deposited by Petitioner No. 2. The company confirms sale in favour of Petitioner No. 2. 

The company is also permitted to refund the amount to the highest bidder of the property. The possession of the property should be handed over within one week from the date of receipt of the balance amount.

The petition stands ordered an disposed of accordingly.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -