IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.46798-800 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S JAYRAM TRACTORS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER VINAY M P S/O MR PANDURANGA SETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A MATUSHREE NILAYA BEHIND BOYS HOSTEL KANDAYAGIRI NAGARA BANGALORE ROAD CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
(By Smt. SANDHYA U. PRABHU, ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER KARNATAKA BANK ASSETS RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH NO.105, MOHAN MANSION 3RD FLOOR, KASTURBA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
2. M B PANDURANGA SETTY S/O LATE BENAKA SETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A B L GOWDA LAYOUT TURUVANUR ROAD CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
3. SMT BHARATHI P SETTY W/O M B PANDURANGA SETTY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A B L GOWDA LAYOUT … PETITIONER TURUVANUR ROAD CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
4. SMT DEEPA M V W/O M P VINAY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A B L GOWDA LAYOUT TURUVANUR ROAD CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
(By Mr. K.V. SHYAM PRASAD, ADV., FOR R1 … RESPONDENTS R2, R3, & R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE VIDE ANNEX-G1 DTD.28.7.2016, ANNEX-G2 DTD.3.8.2016 AND ANNEX-G3 DTD.3.8.2016. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DTD.18.7.2016 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEX-H & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Mr.K.V.Shyam Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. The 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 petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned notice dated 28.07.2016 under Section 13(2) 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 petitioner has 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 petitioner avails of the remedy provided to him under Section 17 of the Act within three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Tribunal shall extend the benefit of principle contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the petitioner and shall decide the application.
5. It appears that the petitioner has made a representation seeking settlement of the loan account. Accordingly, it is directed that the competent authority of the respondent-Bank shall consider the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS