IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28539 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S DOLAN TECHNOCRAFTS PVT LTD, NO 77/2 ET BILEKAHALLI BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE – 560076 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR.
(By Mr. A V AMARNATHAN, ADV.) AND:
UNION BANK OF INDIA NO 4 & 5 50/2 1ST FLOOR 100FT RING ROAD 6TH PAHSE J P NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 045 REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.
(By Mr. P L VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO RECONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DTD:25.10.2016 PRODUCE AT ANNEXURE-J IN VIEW OF FULLY DISCHARGING HIS LIABILITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.A.V.Amarnathan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.L.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) to pass an order of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ in the same nature directing the respondent Bank to reconsider the representation given by the petitioner dated 25.10.2016 produce at Annexure-J, in view of fully discharging his liability.
(b) Direct the respondent Bank not to execute the order by the District Magistrate Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore obtained by the Bank under Section 14 of the SARAESI Act passed by District Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District dated 09.06.2017 in case No.MAG (SEC)CR/01/2017-18, produced at Annexure-N.
(c)To pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to respondent-Bank to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, which is pending consideration before him in accordance with law. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner if not already decided by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS