IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.2128 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Mr. N.K. SATISH S/O LATE N. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT. NMC, 4TH CROSS RIGHT SIDE KUVEMPUNAGAR BHADRAVATHI-577 301.
(By Mr. PRAKASH K.A. ADV.) AND:
M/S. CANARA BANK C.N. ROAD BHADRAVATHI – 577301 REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
(By Mr. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADV.) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow this writ petition. Quash the impugned possession notice dated 29-11-2017 for Rs.8,90,899/- issued by the respondent Bank (Annexure-A) and also the possession notice dated 29-11-2017 for Rs.3,16,653/- issued by the respondent Bank (Annexure-B) and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of the notice dated 29.11.2017 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by way of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
5. In view of the submissions made and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of ‘UNITED BANK OF INDIA vs. SATYAWATI TONDON’ (2010) 8 SCC 110 and ‘STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE vs. MATHEW K.C.’ (2018) 3 SCC 85, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Needless to state that in case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of principle contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
6. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV