IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.108643 OF 2017 (GM-RES) & WRIT PETITION NO.112578 OF 2017 BETWEEN 1. PRASANNA VASUDEVA GHOTAGE, S/O SRI.VASUDEVA GHOTGE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SMT.NEHA PRASANNA GHOTGE, W/O SRI.PRASANNA GHOTGE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT: NO.1088/B, PRERANA HOUSE, RANDE COLONY, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI.
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND ... PETITIONERS 1. M/S CORPORATION BANK, A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITIONS AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT 1980, (ACT V OF 1980) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MANGALA DEVI TEMPLE ROAD, MANGALURU, KARNATAKA STATE AND BRANCHES INTERALIA ONE AT GOGTE COLLEGE OF COMMERCE BRANCH, RANDEY COLONY, 1ST CROSS, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590011, KARNATAKA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ARM BRANCH SENIOR MANAGER, RI.VIJAY KUMAR.
2. SANDEEP PATIL.
RESIDING AT SBI IN TOUGH N FRONT OF RPD COLLEGE, RPD ROAD, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-590006.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.B. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.ADITYA SINGLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF DECLARATION THAT THE CLUBBING OF UNSECURED DEBT WITH A SECURED DEBT UNRELATED TO THE SECURITY INTEREST CREATED UNDER SECTIONS 13(2) AND 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT AND THE RULES MADE THERE UNDER.
***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The plea of the petitioners is for a declaration that E-auction in terms of Annexure-J is not one of the recognized mode to conduct the public auction and that the consequential sale certificate issued is also bad in law. Various contentions are urged on merits in support of their case.
2. However, counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order vide Annexure-J1 is appealable and that the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI act.
3. Further, the prayer is to direct the respondent to consider their one time settlement. To this the counsel for the Bank submits that in spite of repeated requests being made, the petitioners have neither approached the Bank nor made any proposal in any manner whatsoever for a one time settlement. Therefore, such a plea also is intended only to protract the proceedings. Therefore, the only object of the petitioners is to drag on the proceeding by one way or the other.
4. However, in view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy, it is inappropriate for this Court to entertain these petitions. The petitions are rejected with a liberty to the petitioners to pursue the alternative remedy available to them.
Sd/- JUDGE Vnp*