IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.7748-52 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M/S. MANAM FRUIT PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD., A PVT. LTD, COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THANDARAI VILLAGE, BENNAGUR POST HOSUR, DENKANIKOTTA TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT 635107 (T.N.) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. R.P. MOHAN, 64 YEARS.
2. SRI. R.P. MOHAN MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S MANAM FRUIT PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD., AT NO.5 F, KOTHAPETTAH BANGALORE HIGHWAY ROAD NEAR KRISHNAGIRI TOLL NEXT TO COLLECTORT OFFICE KRISHNAGIRI 635001.
3. SMT. GUNAVATHEE MOHAN W/O SRI R.P. MOHAN DIRECTOR M/S MANAM FRUIT PRODUCTRS PRIVATE LTD. R/AT FLAT NO.3, HOMETECH SPANDHANA SY NO.627, VIVEK GARDEN HOSUR 635109.
4. SRI. ANANDRAJ M MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S MANAM FRUIT PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD., AT FLAT NO.3, HOMETECH SPANDHANA SY NO.627, VIVEK GARDEN HOSUR 635109.
5. SMT. GUNAVATHEE MOHAN PROPRIETRIX M/S MANAM AGRO CONCENTRATE R/AT FLAT NO.3, HOMETECH SPANDHANA SY NO.627, VIVEK GARDEN HOSUR 635109.
… PETITIONERS (By Mr. MOHAN DAS RAO T, ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER M/S YES BANK LTD., GROUND FLOOR, PRESTIGE OBELISK MUNICIPAL NO.3, KASTHURBA ROAD BANGALORE 560001 REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER SRI. YOGESH N.
2. SRI. DHANUSHA R S/O SRI. RAMESH S AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT ‘SAMBARAMA NILAYA’ RAJESHWARI NAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-II, BANGALORE 560100.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. N. ASWIN KUMAR, ADV., FOR Mr. K.V. LOKESH, ADV., FOR C/R1 Mr. S. VASANTH MADHAV, ADV., FOR R2 (ABSENT)) - - -
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare the auction sale dated 6-12-2017 and the consequential issuance of sale certificate dated 15-12-2017 registered as document No.5161/2017-18 and stored in CD No.ABLD 310 in the office of the sub-registrar, Attibele, Anekal Taluk (Annexure- D) in favour of the 2nd respondent under the provisions of Securitization Act and in exercise of powers conferred under the Section 13 of the Act, r/w Rule 12 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 by the 1st respondent as Unconstitutional, Unjust, Illegal and violative of principles f natural justice and set aside the same and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioners.
Sri.N.Aswin Kumar, learned counsel for Sri.K.V.Lokesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking quashment of auction sale dated 06.12.2017 and sale certificate dated 15.12.2017.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the action against the petitioners has been taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and the petitioners have the alternative efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON AND ORS.’, (2010) 8 SCC 110 while interpreting the provisions of the Act has held that, once the proceedings under the Act is initiated by the Bank, efficacious remedy in the form of appeal under Section 17 of the Act is provided to the petitioners and they should avail the same. The aforesaid decision was quoted with approval in the case of ‘AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER vs. MATHEW K.C’, (2018) 3 SCC 85. Similar view has been taken in ‘KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS’, (2011) 2 SCC 782 and it has been held that an appeal under Section 17 of the Act lies and the High Court was not justified in entertaining the Writ Petition. The aforesaid view is reiterated in ‘AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER (supra).
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse under Section 17 of the Act. It is needless to state that if the petitioners file an appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Sd/- JUDGE RV