IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.10927/2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
KUMARI LALINA IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.G3 LAKE SHORE RESIDENCY KODICHIKKANAHALLI IIM POST, BEGUR BENGALURU 560 076 REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI M S SHIVA SHANKAR (BY SRI ARUN K S, ADV.) AND:
SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK HOUSING FINANCE BRANCH NO.19, 1ST FLOOR SOUTH END ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU 560 004 (BY SRI H S RUKKOJI RAO, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD.22.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK, BUT SERVED ON THE GPA HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER ONLY ON 13.03.2015 THEREBY DIRECTING THE GPA HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER TO VACATE THE HOUSE WHICH IS MORTGAGED TO THE RESPONDENT BANK WITHIN 7 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER AND WITH A REQUEST TO CO-OPERATE IN PEACEFUL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY, VIDE ANNEX-K.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the notice dated 22.01.2015 as at Annexure-K to the petition.
2. The petitioner herein is the borrower from respondent-Bank. During the subsistence of the mortgage, the Power of Attorney holder representing the petitioner herein had entered into a transaction with the petitioner to purchase the secured asset. The loan obtained from the respondent-bank being unpaid, the respondents had initiated action for recovery of the amount under the SARFAESI Act.
3. In the said process, the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner participated in the auction process and in that light the Power of Attorney Holder who was in possession of the premises continued to remain so. Thereafter since according to the respondent- bank the amount payable had not been paid and since further action in that regard to recover the amount was taken, the communication dated 22.01.2015 was issued to the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner calling upon him to vacate from the premises. It is against such communication, the petitioner has approached this Court being represented by the Power of Attorney Holder. The said notice had been stayed for a period of three months by this Court. Though the interim order had not been continued, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that no further action has been taken.
4. If that be the position, at this juncture, the communication dated 22.01.2015 has last its efficacy and the respondents if they propose any further action would have to notify the petitioner and also her Power of Attorney Holder in an appropriate manner and thereafter action be taken in accordance with law. If at that stage, the petitioner or the Power of Attorney Holder in the capacity as a purchaser has any grievance, liberty to avail their remedies in accordance with law is left open.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms