Karnataka HC rules on assignment agreement petition, emphasizes good faith payments.

The Karnataka High Court disposed of the petition seeking direction for consideration of representation and mandamus for an attested copy of an assignment agreement. The court noted the assignment of debt to respondent No.2, making the petitioner's prayers directed towards respondent No.1 irrelevant. Despite the petitioner's request for time to pay the agreed amount to respondent No.2 for settlement, the court emphasized the lack of good faith in payment delays. However, the court allowed the petitioner to make substantial payments to respondent No.2 and request additional time for the remaining balance, subject to respondent No.2's consideration.

---

---

Issues involved: Petition seeking direction for consideration of representation and mandamus for attested copy of assignment agreement.

Summary:
The petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court seeking a direction for respondent No.1 to consider a representation dated 27.04.2011 and to provide an attested copy of an alleged assignment agreement dated 03.05.2011. The petitioner had availed loans from respondent No.1-Bank, and proceedings were initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal resulting in a recovery certificate being granted. Respondent No.2 is the assignee of the debt from respondent No.1. The petitioner's prayers in the petition were directed towards respondent No.1, but considering the assignment to respondent No.2, the issues needed to be evaluated in that context. The petitioner had produced communications exchanged with respondent No.2, indicating a need for negotiation with them. The court noted that the prayers in the petition had become irrelevant due to the assignment to respondent No.2.

The petitioner requested time to pay the agreed amount to respondent No.2 for settlement, but respondent No.2 highlighted the delay in payment despite previous indications and requests for extension. The court observed that since the petitioner had not shown good faith by making any payments as per the communications, there was no basis for extending the time for payment. However, the court acknowledged the possibility of settlement based on correspondences between the parties and allowed the petitioner to make substantial payments to respondent No.2 and request for additional time to pay the remaining balance, subject to respondent No.2's consideration.

The petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to make substantial payments to respondent No.2 and request for further time to pay the balance amount, leaving the decision on such representation to respondent No.2. Consequently, the application filed in IA.No.1/2013 was also disposed of in light of the main petition's disposal.

---