H. SANJAY KUMAR Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1; Mr. Sunil B Ganu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 to 15; and Mr. Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.16.

(2.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of respondent No.1 in conducting the e-auction on 5/12/2020 on the basis of the e-auction sale notice dtd. 20/11/2017 which had fixed the auction date as 27/12/2017 as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same.

(3.) Case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is the partnership firm of which respondent Nos.3 to 13 are the partners except respondent No.6 who is the legal heir of late Smt. Rajubai who was one of the partners of the firm. Likewise, respondent Nos.14 and 15 are the legal heirs of late Dayakiran who was also one of the partners of the partnership firm. Respondent No.2 had availed loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs from the first respondent - Canara Bank, Nizamabad branch on 13/11/1996 for business purpose. Petitioner stood as guarantor to the loan so availed of by respondent No.2 from respondent No.1. Subsequently, respondent No.2 obtained further loans from the first respondent, details of which have been furnished in paragraph No.11 of the writ affidavit.