IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1706 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
K. Anil Prabhu, S/o. Shri Kamalaksha Prabhu, Aged about 35 years, Proprietor, Messrs Vijaya Cashew Works, Resident of Prabhu Compound, Peravaje Road, Karkala-574 104, DK District.
(By Sri. Abhishek K, Advocate, for Sri. Ashok K. L, Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Mangalore District, Manipala-576 104.
2. The Canara Bank, Karkala Branch, Shreyas Building, Main Road, Karkala-574 104, represented by its Chief Manager.
… Petitioner 3. Shri. Varadaraj Pai, Major, Proprietor, M/s. Yajamana Industries, Vamada Padur, Bantwal Taluk-574 211.
… Respondents (By Sri. T. P. Muthan, Advocate for R1; Sri. B. S. Sachin, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-2 bank to consider the representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure-E and F and allow the petitioner to retain the property by canceling the auction made in favour of the R-3 and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Abhishek, learned counsel for Sri. Ashok K. L., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. T. P. Muthan, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri. B. S. Sachin, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the auction notice dated 29.11.2017 issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
3. Petitioner also seeks direction to respondent No.2-Bank to consider the representation made by the petitioner contained under Annexures-E and F and allow the petitioner to retain the property.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that three times the proposal submitted by the petitioner under ‘One Time Settlement’ scheme was considered by the Bank and was accepted. However, the petitioner did not abide by the terms and conditions of the proposal submitted by him and subsequently, the property belonging to the petitioner has already been sold in auction and sale certificate has been issued.
5. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments and for the reasons assigned by this Court in the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.6594/2018, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy as is provided under Section 17 of the Act.
6. Needless to state that in case petitioner files an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Mds/-
Sd/- JUDGE