IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.2698 OF 2016 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
SMT.K.ROOPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE S.UMESH, RESIDING AT NO.17, 6TH CROSS, OPP. 43 ‘A’ LAST BUS STOP, KATRIGUPPA MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 085.
(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K.V., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, J.P.NAGAR BRANCH, NO.1104, 24TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 078. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER.
2. ARCIL ARM, ASSET RE-CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD., KEDIA ARCADE, UNIT NO.305, 3RD FLOOR, NO.92, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
…PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY SRI.MOHAN KUMAR, SENIOR RESOLUTION COUNCILOR.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADV. FOR R2; R1 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE – H THE LETTER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2015 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN S.A.NO.240/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE – Q BY DIRECTING THE R-1 BANK TO RE-ALLOCATE THE LOAN STANDING IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER AND ADJUST THE ENTIRE LOAN AMOUNT UNDER THE INSURANCE POLICY CALLED AS SBI LIFE SUPER SURAKSHA AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Manjunath K.V., learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Francis Xavier, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, has assailed the validity of the order dated 30.11.2015 in S.A. No.240/2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she be granted liberty to submit fresh proposal for settlement of loan account to the competent authority of the respondent-Bank and the respondent may be directed to consider the same in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that in case such proposal is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of the submissions made and facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that in case petitioner files an application within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the competent authority of the respondent-Bank shall consider and decide the application which may be submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, by a speaking order within two weeks from the date of receipt of such application.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-