IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.23104 OF 2018 & 23114-115 of 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M/S. ICTHUS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., DOOR NO.5/106L KARUNYA, NEAR M.M.SCHOOL, 7th CROSS, 76 BADAGUBETTU BAILORE UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 010 REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GREGORY D’SOUZA.
2. GREGORY D’SOUZA S/O LATE SALVODORE D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 6-1-81, D ANDRADE LANE VALKADU, BAILOOR BADAGUBETTU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.
3. JEETHESH JAYSTON D’SOUZA S/O GREGORY D’SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 6-1-81, ‘D’ ANDRADE LANE, VALKADU, BAILOOR, BADAGUBETTU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101. (BY MR. YADAVA K, ADV.) … PETITIONERS AND:
THE BANK OF BARODA UDUPI BRANCH, PB NO.19, VISHNU PRAKASH COURT ROAD, UDUPI, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
(BY MR. T P MUTHANNA) - - -
… RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 08.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Yadava K., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. These writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the impugned notice dated 08.05.2018 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).
4. 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 petitions are disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioners avail 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 petitioners and shall decide the application. Till then, the interim order shall continue.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS