IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.55684/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. KAVERI TELECOM PRODUCTS LTD., PLOT NO.31-36, 1ST MAIN 2ND STAGE, ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076 REP. BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR SHIVAKUMAR REDDY SON OF CHENNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS (BY SRI D R RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR M/S. LEX NEXUS) AND:
1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA SPECIALISED COMMERCIAL BRANCH 1ST FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE 560001. REP. BY ITS MANAGER 2. EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED, EDELWEISS HOUSE, 15TH FLOOR, CST ROAD KALINA, MUMBAI 400098.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (BY SRI: VIGNESH SHETTY, ADV. FOR C/R2) NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH ANNEX- G THE AUCTION NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R-2 DATED 01.12.2017 AND ALSO THE PAPER PUBLICATIO FOR PUBLIC SALE OF THE PROPERTY DATED 01.12.2017, VIDE ANNEX-G1.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Respondent No.2 has entered caveat. Since respondent No.2 is the assignee, notice to respondent No.1 is not necessary. Accordingly, notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior counsel representing respondent No.2 and perused the petition papers.
3. The grievance put forth by the petitioner herein is that the property which was indicated as Schedule ‘B’ in O.A.No.1537/2013 is not the mortgaged property and the same has also been held so in the judgment dated 22.05.2017 passed in T.A.No.678/2017 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (‘the DRT’ for short). In that light, it is contended that when that being the position and also when this Court through the order dated 11.09.2017 in W.P.No.41524/2017 based on the very same contention has stayed the auction against the said property, the sale is not justified.
4. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that the exclusion of the said property as accepted by the Tribunal is an error and therefore, respondent No.2 has filed a review petition which is pending before the DRT and the respondents have been notified therein.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in any event has secured a copy of the review petition and produced it as Annexure-F to the petition. From the perusal of the same, it is seen that the prayer made in the review petition is to secure incorporation of the Schedule B property also in the judgment passed by the DRT.
6. If that be the position, the petition papers on the face of it would disclose that at present, the Schedule-B property has been excluded and action has been taken by respondent No.2 to file a review petition and secure inclusion. Therefore until the review petition is considered and disposed of, respondent No.2 in any event cannot bring the property to sale.
7. Hence, to that extent, the impugned sale notice dated 01.12.2017 is held as not sustainable at this stage. However, the rights of the parties are left open to be considered after the final decision is taken by the DRT in the pending review petition.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms