IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.49776-778 OF 2018 (GM-DRT) Between:
1. Mrs. M. Nanda Aged about 54 years W/o late Mr. Puttaswamy 2. Mr. Adarsh N P S/o late Mr. Puttaswamy Aged about 32 years 3. Ms. Arpitha N P D/o of late Mr. Puttaswamy Aged about 29 years All residing at No.453 Sri Krupa New Kantha Raj Urs Road TK Layout Mysuru – 570 023.
… Petitioners (By Sri. Pravardhan Urs, Advocate For Sri. Karan Joesph, Advocate) AND:
1. The Canara Bank Industrial Suburb Branch Mysuru – 570 008 Represented by its Manager 2. Mr. A. M. Joesph No.653, Pushpagiri, RBI Post, Mysuru – 570 003.
… Respondents These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned sale certificate dated 11.06.2018 (at Annexure-N) and all proceedings pursuant thereto and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Pravardhan Urs, learned counsel for Sri. Karan Joesph, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Grant a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Impugned Sale Certificate dated 11.06.2018 (at Annexure N) and all proceedings pursuant thereto;
b) Grant a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Impugned Sale Proclamation dated 06.04.2018 (at Annexure M);
c) Grant a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.1 to consider the One Time Settlement Proposal of the Petitioners dated 19.08.2015 (at Annexure D) 3. For the reasons by this Court in the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.6594/2018, the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy of filing the application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if so advised.
4. Needless to state that in case the petitioners approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, they shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
5. Insofar as the prayer made by the petitioners with regard to consideration of One Time Settlement proposal dated 19.08.2015 is concerned, it is open for respondent No.1-Bank to take decision on the proposal, if not already taken, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-