IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION Nos.21991-21996/2018 (GM RES) BETWEEN MR MOHAMMED YASIN, S/O RIYAZ AHMED, PROPRIETOR M/S. ZOYA COLLECTIONS, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7P, 3RD STREET, 2ND CROSS, BHARATHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.CHANNAKESHAVA, ADV. FOR SRI. N. SURESHA, ADV.) AND 1. M/S RBL BANK PRESTIGE TOWER, GROUND FLOOR, 99 AND 100, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025 REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
2. M/S HIGHWAY PLYWOOD NO.25-28, 2118/5, GARAGE OWNER ASSOCIATIONS, BUILDING JAPPINMOGURU, MANGALORE-575002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.MOHAMMED YASIR ARAFAT ALSO AT NO.40/1, SONNAPPA COMPLEX, OPP: FREEDOM FOUNDATION HENNUR VILLAGE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560043.
3. SRI SURESH KUMAR SHENDGE S/O LATE C.B.CHANDER RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.9, NANDARAM SINGH LANE, LAKSHMANA MUDALIAR STREET CROSS, SHIVAJI NAGAR BENGALURU-560001.
4. MR. RIYAZ AHMED, S/O LATE ABDUL RAHIM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.5, MUTHYALAMMA KOIL, ’A’ STREET, SEPPINGS ROAD CROSS, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI FRANCIS XAVIER, ADV. FOR R1, SRI VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN K, ADV. FOR R3-ABSENT, SMT. VEENA BHAT, ADV. FOR R4-ABSENT.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 NOT TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE WRIT PETITION SCHEDULED PROPERTIES ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri R.Channakeshava, Advocate for Sri N.Suresha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Francis Xavier, learned counsel for R-1.
In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to respondent no.1 not to take physical possession of the property.
2. The petitioner is admittedly the tenant in respect of the property in question. Respondent-Bank has taken action under Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (`SARFAESI Act’ for short). Admittedly, against the aforesaid order, a remedy of appeal lies to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17(4A) of the Act.
3. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the petitions with liberty to file an appeal under Section 17(4A) of the Act.
Needless to state that in case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of provisions contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-
CT-HR