IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.26834 OF 2019 (GM - RES) BETWEEN:
MR.BALAPPA PUNITH, PARTNER: M/S. VISHAL GRAPHICS, NO.21, 1ST FLOOR, K.V.TEMPLE, BALAPPA TOWERS, SULTANPET, BENGALURU – 560 053.
... PETITIONER (BY SMT. KAVITHA D, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND :
M/S. RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED, NO.3, SANGEETHA TOWERS, 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 038.
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/ CHIEF MANAGER.
... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PROHIBIT THE RESPONDENT FROM PROCEEDING WITH ANY KIND OF RECOVERY ACTION AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISION/S OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND ETC., - - -
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
In this petition, petitioner inter-alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue writ in the nature of prohibition and prohibit the respondent from proceeding with any king of recovery action against the schedule property under the provision/s of SARFAESI Act, 2002;
b) Pending due compliance of order dated 28.03.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.23855/2018 (GM-RES) under Annexure-J , issue necessary directions to respondent not to proceed with any kind of recovery action against the schedule property;
c) Set aside the order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Hon’ble IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.4186/2018 under Annexure-G;
d) Set aside the notice order dated and set aside the notice No. SA/RFL/SARFASESI/MORT/MARCH/12/ 2018 dated 23.05.2018 issued by the respondent under Annexure-E;
e) Issue such other writ, order or direction/s as may be deemed fit to grant in the given circumstances of the case and in the ends of justice and equity.”
2. From the perusal of the averment made in the petition and the nature of the relief sought, it is evident that no writ of prohibition can be issued to the respondent in view of the statutory remedy available to him under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Therefore, the relief claimed is grossly misconceived and therefore, the same cannot be granted.
3. As the petitioner submitted that the pending compliance of the order dated 28.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.23855/2018, the respondent should be restrained from proceeding to take action for recovery of the amount.
4. Needless to state that in the aforesaid order this Court only directed the respondent to decide the representation which may be submitted by the petitioner. In case the aforesaid order is not complied, the petitioner shall be at liberty to proceed for contempt, if so advised.
5. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the order dated 14.02.2019 passed under Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act against the aforesaid order. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the matter.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty as aforesaid.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB