IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.48625 OF 2016 & WRIT PETITION NO.48725 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. EARESH KALLALI S/O. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 26, ASHOKA NAGAR ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU - 560 045.
2. SMT. EASHWARI W/O. EARESH KALLALI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT H.NO. 1-4-1495/100 GANGAPARAMESHWARI COLONY NEAR IDSMT LAYOUT RAICHUR - 584 101. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR H.R., ADV.) AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (LEGAL) BANK OF BARODA M.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER BANK OF BARODA RAICHUR BRANCH 11-7-1 TO 7, RASTAPUR COMPLEX BRESTHWARPET CITY TALKIES ROAD RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 101.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK (HEAD OFFICE) GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA R. HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1 & R2; SRI M. MOHAN RAO, ADV. FOR R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY R-2 BANK BEARING NO.NIL DATED 08.08.2016 VIDE ANNEX-C BY TREATING IT AS UNFAIR, UNJUST AND ALTOGETHER CAPRICIOUS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Mohan Kumar H.R., learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Gopalakrishna R. Hegde, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the impugned notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
3. In view of the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6594/2018 and for the reasons assigned therein, the petitioners have a remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioners avail of the remedy provided to them under Section 17 of the Act within three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Tribunal shall extend the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the petitioners and shall decide the application. Till then, the interim order shall continue.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST