IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08th DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE W.P.Nos.15489/2019 & 15640-641/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/s.Babasaheb Ambedkar Education Society Having registered office at Post Kudachi, Raibag Taluka, Belgaum District, Karnataka, Represented by its GPA Holder Mr.K.V.Ranjith Kumar …PETITIONER (By Sri. S.K.Mithun,, Adv.) AND:
1. State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch 2nd Floor, ‘A’ Block, BKG Complex, Mysore Bank Circle, Avenue Road, Bangalore – 560 009.
Represented by its Authorized Officer (SARFAESI) 2. The Chief Manager State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch 2nd Floor, ‘A’ Block, BKG Complex, Mysore Bank Circle, Avenue Road, Bangalore – 560 009.
3. The Authorized Officer State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch 2nd Floor, ‘A’ Block, BKG Complex, Mysore Bank Circle, Avenue Road, Bangalore – 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS (By Sri. R N S P Achanta, Adv. for C/R1) These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Sale Notice vide Annexure-F dated 01.03.2019 issued by R-3 & Etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Mithun S.K. learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Sri.R.N.S.P. Achanta, learned counsel for Respondent No.1- Bank.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In these petitions under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the Sale Notice dated 01.03.2019 issued by the Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short).
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank submitted that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of challenging the action taken by the Respondent-Bank under the provisions of the Act and therefore, the petitioner should be relegated to avail the alternative remedy.
4. For the reasons assigned in the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.6594/2018, no ground for interference is made out with regard to the Sale Notice dated 01.03.2019 and the remedy available for the petitioner is to file an application under Section 17 of the Act.
5. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In case, the petitioner files an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.