IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1119 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
HONNAMMA AMENDED AS PER W/O LATE LINGAPPA ORDER DTD:5.2.2016 AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT. KHATA NO.116 SITE NO.20, BBMP PID NO.1483/A/166/A/20/A SITUATED AT VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE KENGERI HOBALI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
… PETITIONER (By Mr. N. SURESHA, ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1. VIJAYA BANK AMENDED AS PER MYSORE ROAD BRANCH ORDER DTD:5.2.2016 NO.152, 2ND MAIN 7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560018 REP. BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
2. JAYAMMA W/O SUDARESH R AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.45, 15TH MAIN 50 FEET ROAD MUNESHWAR BLOCK BANGALORE-560026.
3. N. DORESWAMY S/O NARSIMHA NAIDU NO.307, ROSHAN PALACE BEHIND BIG BAZAR BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE-560085.
(By Mr. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADV., FOR R1 R2 & R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
… RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-1 not to take physical possession of the W.P. scheduled property. Grant an interim order to restrain the R-1 Bank from taking possession of the schedule property and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Sri.Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed the following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.1 not to take physical possession of the writ petition scheduled property.
b. Pass such other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – Bank has submitted that an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has been passed against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner claims to be a tenant. In view of Section 17-4(A) of the Act, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of an appeal under Section 17-4(A) of the Act. Needless to state that in case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Sd/- JUDGE RV