IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.32024 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MRS DEEPIKA KAPOOR AGED 48 YEARS W/O ASHOK KAPOOR R/AT FLAT NO.301, B BLOCK, RANKA PLAZA, WHEELERS ROD, FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU - 560 005 2. MR. ASHOK KAPOOR AGED 54 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. F.C. KAPOOR R/AT FLAT NO.301, B BLOCK, RANKA PLAZA, WHEELERS ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU 560 005 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UCO BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, NO.13/22, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
2. THE UCO BANK MANGALURU BRANCH NEAR SHARAVU MAHAGANAPATHI TEMPLE, 2ND CROSS, K.S. RAO ROAD, HAMPANAKATTA, MANGALURU - 575 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION AGAINST THE R-1 FROM INITIATING OR CONTINUING ITS ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SARFAESI ACT AND ALSO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS TAKING ANY ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS OR AUCTIONING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission.
2. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seek a writ of prohibition against respondent No.1 from initiating or continuing any action against the petitioners by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and also to restrain the respondents from taking any action against the petitioners or auctioning of the schedule property.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent-Bank has already issued notice under Section 13(4) of the Act which is the subject matter of the challenge. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in which a conditional order of stay has been granted. It is further submitted that now once again, the respondent-Bank contemplated to invoke the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the writ of prohibition be issued restraining the respondents from doing so.
4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners at length.. From perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is evident that the respondents have not yet invoked the provisions of the Act. Therefore, at this point of time, no cause of action has been accrued to the petitioners. It is trite law that the relief in anticipation cannot be granted and no person or authority can be prevented from taking recourse to remedy to which he or it is entitled to. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-