IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.54838 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S HOTEL AMOGGH PALACE A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE NO.113, BANDIPALYA OPPOSITE TO APMC MAIN GATE NANJANGUDU ROAD, MYSORE-570024 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR/ MANAGING DIRECTOR SMT. N. JYOTHI.
(By Mr. D.P. MAHESH, ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1. THE CANARA BANK INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS … PETITIONER OF THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT 1970 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT N.S.ROAD NANJUMALIGE, LAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE-570004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER.
2. THE ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/ CANARA BANK OFFICE AT N.S. ROAD NANJUMALIGE LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570004.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. C. VINAY SWAMY, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD:4.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO RESTRUCTURE/RESCHEDULE THE LOAN ACCOUNT THEREBY PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE OUTSTANDING INSTALLMENTS 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.C.Vinay Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Record perused.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the auction sale notice dated 20.11.2017 issued by the respondent No.1 – Bank. A Bench of this Court, by an ad interim order dated 06.12.2017, had directed that the auction in question shall not be finalized in case the petitioner deposits a sum of `25,00,000/- within four weeks.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the interim order dated 06.12.2017 passed by a Bench of this Court inasmuch as a sum of `25,00,000/- has not been deposited with the respondent No.1 - Bank.
4. In any case, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
5. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioner avails of the remedy provided to them 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.
Sd/- JUDGE RV