IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.37254/2015(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LINGARAJU K B AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2 HARSHA LAYOUT MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD MUDDANNA GARDEN, KENGERI BENGALURU-560060.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.R.MANJUNATH KASTHURI, ADV.) AND KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH HAVING OFFICE AT NO.105 III FLOOR, MOHAN MANSION KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER MR DATU.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. V. SHYAM PRASAD, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.13.2.2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III A.C.M.M. AT BENGALURU IN C.MISC.11227/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A Z7 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R There is no representation for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.2.2015 passed by the Hon’ble III ACMM, Bengaluru in C.Misc.11227/2014 vide Annexure-A.
3. This Court by order dated 13.9.2015 had granted interim order. The same reads as under:
“Issue notice to the respondent. In the meanwhile, there shall be interim order as prayed, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
with the respondent within four weeks from this date.
In addition, the petitioner shall, thereafter, deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in the next four weeks.
Hence, the petitioner shall involve to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within eight weeks from this date.”
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within eight weeks from the date of the interim order. But the petitioner has not paid any amount. Further, he submits that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the SARFEASI Act.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is placed on record.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent legal forum, if so advised.
Sd/- JUDGE DM