IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.21997-21998 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/s. Central Trade Agency (P) Ltd., Represented by its Director Mr.Shakeer Hussain Haneef Rawther S/o Mr.Haneefa Rawther Aged 48 years No.17, 4th Main, 4th Block Goraguntepalya Bangalore – 560 022.
(By Sri. Markanda Shetty, Advocate) AND:
1. M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Agri Business Group Heera Paradise No.487, 1st Floor, 9th Main 4th Block, Jayanagar Bangalore – 560 011 Rep by its Authorised Officer … Petitioner 2. M/s.SA Rawther Spices Private Limited Rep by Mr. Anish Mohammed Rawther S/o late Syed Mohammed Rawther Aged 36 years 3. Mr.Anish Mohammed Rawther S/o late Syed Mohammed Rawther Aged 36 years Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are At No.43/L, 1st Floor, Lorry Stand Godown Yeshwanthpur Bengaluru – 560 022.
4. Mrs.Haseena Shaikh Thazathu W/o late Syed Mohammed Rawther Aged 58 years R/at No.167, 10th Cross RMV 2nd Stage Bengaluru – 560 046.
5. Mrs.Sharina Syed M D/o late Syed Mohammed Rawther Aged 31 years R/at No.192, 13th Cross 3rd Lane, Dollars Colony RMV 2nd Stage Bengaluru – 560 094.
(By Sri. K.Rama Bhat, Advocate for R1 … Respondents Smt. V.Veena Bhat, Advocate for R4 - absent) These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct R1 not to take physical possession of the W.P. scheduled properties and grant an interim order to restrain the R1 Bank from taking possession of the schedule property.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Markanda Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri. K.Rama Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 not to take physical possession of the property in question.
3. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Bank submitted that the possession is sought to be taken against the petitioner under Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short and therefore, the petitioner has the remedy of filing an application under Section 17 (4) (a) of the Act as he is a tenant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the premises in the capacity of a tenant and therefore, he be granted liberty to file an application under Section 17(4)(a) of the Act.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 17 (4) (a) of the Act, if so advised.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*