SRI S MADHAV Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the notice dated 28.12.2010, the certificate dated 10.11.2010 and the consequential official notice dated 04.12.2010 which are impugned at Annexures -D and C respectively.

(2.) The petitioner was the Managing Director of the company known as M/s. Bellary Steels and Alloys Ltd. The company had availed loan from the third respondent -Corporation. Towards the said loan several properties had been hypothecated and mortgaged. The petitioner is one of the personal guarantors in respect of the loan availed by the said company as a borrower. Since the amount stood outstanding, the third respondent -Corporation made a representation to the Government of Karnataka seeking permission to recover the dues by invoking the provision of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('The KLR Act' for short). In that view, a notification dated 16.01.2010 was issued by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of the power conferred under Section 32G of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ('The SFC Act' for short).

(3.) The third respondent -Corporation in that regard had quantified the amount recoverable from the company at Rs.19,95,76,475.88ps and issued the certificate for recovery of the amount by sale of the mortgaged property. The fourth respondent Deputy Commissioner in that light issued the notice dated 04.12.2010 directing the second respondent -Special Tahsildar to recover the said amount by invoking the provision under Section 190 of the KLR Act. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent has issued the notice in form No.37 calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount through the notice dated 28.12.2010. The recovery proceedings thus being initiated by respondents No.1 to 4, the petitioner was before this Court assailing the said action. During the pendency of the petition, the process has been completed and in the said process the fifth and sixth respondents who are impleaded herein are the successful purchasers. In that view, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the auction in favour of the said respondents held on 11.06.2014 is illegal and not sustainable.