IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.3317 OF 2017 & WRIT PETITION NOS.4152-53 OF 2017(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S ALPINE WINERIES PVT. LIMITED NO.33/1, 2ND FLOOR SAPTHAGIRI ARCADE H.SIDDAIAH ROAD 8TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (By Mr.PRASANNA C.S. ADV.) AND:
1. M/S BANK OF MAHARASHTRA BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE NO.15, POLICE STATION ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE – 560 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER 2. ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH BANGALORE ZONEL OFFICE NO.15, POLICE STATION ROAD BANK OF MAHARASHTRA BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE – 560 004 REP BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER … PETITIONER 3. THE VICE-PRESIDENT M/S PRIDHVI ASSETS RE-CONSTRUCTION AND SECURITIZATION CO. LTD., NO.1-55, RAJAPRAASADAMU 4TH FLOOR, WING-1, MASJIZ BANDA ROAD KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD – 84 (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.06.2017) 4. V.VENKATESH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.14 3RD CROSS, NEHARUNAGARA BENGALURU – 560 020 (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.08.2018) (By Mr.V.B.RAVISHANKAR ADV. FOR R1, R2 & R3 MR.VIVEK REDDY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.D.P.MAHESH ADV. FOR R4) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE LETTER DATED 24.08.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY CONSIDERING THE REPAYMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND RE- STRUCTURE THE LOANS ACCOUNTS AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED THEREIN.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Prasanna Kumar C.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.V.B.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
Mr.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior counsel for Sri.D.P.Mahesh for respondent No.4 2. In these petitions the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the letter dated 24.08.2012 by considering the repayment made by the petitioner and to re structure the loan accounts as per the terms and conditions stated therein. Petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 08.08.2016 under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of e-auction sale notice dated 24.12.2016 by which the auction sale was proposed to be held on 31.01.2017.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that in view of the well settled legal position, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. However, it is submitted that the petitioner may be non-suited on the ground that the remedy of appeal has become barred by limitation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank as well as learned Senior counsel for the auction purchaser has invited the attention of this Court to the ad-interim order dated 28.02.2018 and has submitted that by virtue of the aforesaid ad-interim order, the auction purchaser has been placed in possession of the property and the sale certificate has been issued in his favour, which has been subsequently registered.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has denied the assertion made by the learned counsel for the auction purchaser that he has been placed in possession of the property.
6. In view of the submissions made and taking in to account the well settled legal position that the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today. It is further directed that in case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Needless to state, that the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties and shall decide the appeal bearing in mind the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by this Court, which shall be subject to final adjudication of the appeal by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS