IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.51459-460 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M/S ENVISION GROUP NO.114, KEMPAIAH BUILDING GURUPRIYA KALYANA MANDAPPA ROAD, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KAREKALLU KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU-560079 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT MANASA K J.
2. SRI CHANNEGOWDA K S/O MR KEMPAIAH AGED 39 YEARS NO.114, KEMPAIAH BUILDING GURUPRIYA KALAYANA MANDAPPA ROAD 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD KAREKALLU KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU-560079. … PETITIONERS (By Mr. DILI RAJAN, ADV. FOR Mr. K N SUBBA REDDY, ADV.) AND:
1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER ALLAHABAD BANK, (TASKER TOWN BRANCH) 180, SHIAJI ROAD, (1ST FLOOR) OPP TO ELIGIN THEATRE SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560051.
2. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK (TASKER TOWN BRANCH) 180, SHIAJI ROAD, (1ST FLOOR) OPP TO ELIGIN THEATRE SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560051. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. R V NAIK, ADV. FOR C/R1 & R2) - - -
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned sale notice dated 11.10.18 issued by the R-2 bank vide Annexure-A; and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Dili Rajan, learned counsel for Sri.K.N.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.R.V.Naik, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire amount due and payable has been paid to the respondent – Bank.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to the respondent – Bank. In case such a representation is submitted, the competent authority of the respondent – Bank shall decide the same within one week from the date of receipt of such representation. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by any action taken by the respondent – Bank, the petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Sd/- JUDGE RV