IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.18153 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. G. SUJATHA D/O. G. MALLESHAPPA OCC: HOUSE WIFE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.2, 1ST CROSS ROAD OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD BASAPPA GARDEN CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU-560 090. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI GEORGE ANTHONY CRUZE AND SRI A. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE) LHO, STATE BANK OF INDIA ST. MARK’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE -RACPC-BALLARI 1ST FLOOR, SBM BUILDING STATION ROAD BALLARI-583 101.
3. THE CHIEF MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE -RACPC-BALLARI 1ST FLOOR, SBM BUILDING STATION ROAD BALLARI-583 101.
4. G. MALLESHAPPA S/O. G. THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT DOOR NO.18, WARD NO.16 NEAR M.G. OCTROI GATE ANANTHAPUR ROAD BALLARI-583 101.
5. K.P. SRINIVASULU S/O. K.P. BHEEMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: BUSINESSMAN R/AT NO.2, SAILAVANYA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, VISHALNAGAR BALLARI-583 101. … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 BANK BY ORDER DATED 19.02.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri George Anthony Cruze and Sri A. Nagaraj, learned counsel for petitioner.
2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned sale notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
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 petitioner has 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 petitioner avail of the remedy provided to her under Section 17 of the Act within four 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 petitioner and shall decide the application.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST