IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.22515-22516/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M/S.PRUDENT APPARELS NO.129/1, MARAPPA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KAMAKSHIPALYA VRISHABHAVATHINAGAR (VINAYAK NAGAR) BENGALURU-560 079 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI VENUGOPAL.I S/O. LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN 2. SRI VENUGOPAL.I S/O. LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.495, 5RD MAIN D GROUP LAYOUT, SRIGANDHADA KAVAL VISHWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU- 560 091 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SUNIL.S.RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER BANGALORE 2. M/S.SYNDICATE BANK RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE NEAR NAVRANG TALKIES DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD BENGALURU- 560 010 REP. BY ITS GENERAL BRANCH MANAGER 3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER M/S. SYNDICATE BANK RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE NEAR NAVRANG TALKIES DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD BENGALURU- 560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2019 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY IX ACMM, BENGALURU IN CRL.MIS.4345/2016 ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Sri Sunil S.Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
No.3.
Sri Vignesh Shetty, learned Counsel for respondent 2. Taking into account the order, which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the other respondents.
3. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
4. In the petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order of direction to quash the impugned order one passed by the IX ACMM, Bengaluru in Crl.Mis.4345/2016 dated 28.03.2019 as found at Annexure-A.
b) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to implement One Time Settlement Scheme which has been partially acted upon by respondent No.2 and the petitioners in terms of the letter dated 27.06.2017 as found at Annexure-L.
5. Learned Counsel for the for the petitioners submits that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- is given by the petitioners to respondent No.2 Bank and the petitioners have submitted representation for one time settlement proposal of the loan account to respondent No.2 Bank and respondent No.2 may be directed to decide one time settlement proposal by a speaking order within fixed time limit.
6. In view of the submission made and in the facts of the case, the petitions are disposed of with a direction to the competent authority respondent No.2 Bank to decide one time settlement proposal by the petitioners by a speaking order within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. Till the representation of the petitioners for one time settlement proposal is taken, status quo as existing today with regard to possession in respect of the schedule property be maintained. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR