IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.35330 OF 2019(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT.NANJAMMA W/O CHANNAVEERASHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R.AT NO.45, OLD NO.71/6 4TH CROSS, MEENAKSHINAGARA KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU – 79.
… PETITIONER (BY MR.T.SUNIL KUMAR FOR MR.SRIKANTH M., ADV.) AND:
1. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REP BY ITS MANAGER 2. THE MANAGER CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RAJAJINGAR BRANCH NO.651/A, D BLOCK, 2ND STAGE DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 010.
3. THE MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA NO.56, PUSHPAGIRI COMPLEX 17TH CROSS, MAGADI CHORD ROAD VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040.
4. MR.NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 5. SMT.YASHODA W/O N.NARASHIMA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NO.152, SRIGANDADAKVAL SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU – 560 091.
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE R1 TO 3 SEEKING A DIRECTION NOT TO RESORT TO ANY PRECIPITATIVE MEASURE SEEKING ALIENATION OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN RFA NO.1397/2019 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the notice dated 05.07.2019 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he be granted liberty of filing a petition under Section 17 of the Act along with an application for stay and since, the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not holding sitting for next three days, the petitioner be granted ad interim protection till the application submitted by the petitioner is considered in accordance with law.
3. In view of the aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned in the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6594/2018, the petitioner has a remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioner avails of the remedy provided to him under Section 17 of the Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Tribunal shall extend the benefit of principle contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the petitioners and shall decide the application. Till the application for stay is considered, status quo as it exists today with regard to possession of the premises in question shall be maintained by the parties. In addition, the sale shall not take place. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS