IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.2977 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Smt. Meenakashi. S W/o. Sri Bhaskar Anand, D/o Sri. N. Sundara Murthy, Aged about 43 years, Residing at No. 44, 1st Phase, Vidhyaranyapura, Amba Bhavani Temple Road, Chikkabettahalli, Bengaluru – 560 097.
(By Sri. J. Prakash, Advocate) AND:
1. The Authorized Officer & Chief Manager, Bank of India, Visveswarapuram Branch, #83, Diagonal Road, Visveswarapuram, Bengaluru – 560 004.
2 Sri S.S.P. Bhaskar Anand, S/o. M. Sundaralingam, Aged about 50 years, Sri. Gangendra Nilaya, No. 21, Jyothi Nagara, … Petitioner 2nd Cross, Near Sambram College, Chikkabettahalli, Vidhyaranyapura, Bengaluru – 560 097.
… Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Annexure-C issued by the R-1 under SARFAESI Act, Rule–8(1), possession notice (for immovable property) dated 15.12.2018 and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. J. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Taking into account the order, which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the possession notice dated 15.12.2018, issued by respondent No.1-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that against the impugned order an appeal lies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, he submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2 had jointly purchased the secured asset in question and the petitioner is occupying the possession with her minor children and subsequently, the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 have dissolved their marriage by decree of divorce.
4. It is further submitted that in the portion of the secured asset, respondent No.2 is running a business and he has not paid any amount of loan to respondent No.1. In case possession notice issued by respondent No.1-Bank is given effect to, petitioner shall be thrown on street along with her minor children.
However, it is fairly submitted that petitioner will submit a representation in this regard to respondent No.1-Bank and competent authority of respondent No.1-Bank be directed to take into consideration the representation, which may be submitted by the petitioner.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit the representation to respondent No.1-Bank within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is needless to state that in case such a representation is submitted to respondent No.1-Bank, competent authority of respondent No.1-Bank shall consider the representation in a sympathetic manner and take decision in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-