Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

R Gururaj vs The Authorised Officer Karnataka Bank Ltd And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|21 March, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.12195 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
R.GURURAJ AGE 38 YEARS NO.10/1, 3RD MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE – 560 018.
(BY SRI.K.PRATHAPAN, ADV.) AND:
… PETITIONER 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER KARNATAKA BANK LTD., (ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH) NO.39/2, 2ND FLOOR ASVNV BHAVAN OPP.FKCCI BUILDING KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009.
2. WHITE HORSE NETWORK SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.KAILASAM.T HAVING OFFICE AT NO.223, G.R.ARCADE 3RD FLOOR, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESWARAM BANGALORE – 560 003.
… RESPONDENTS - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE OF SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DATED 27.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1-BANK AS PER ANNEXURE-B , AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.K.Prathapan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the notice of sale of immovable property dated 27.02.2019 issued by the first respondent under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner who is an operational creditor is a person aggrieved by the impugned notice. The petitioner has a remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by approaching Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is further submitted that the petitioner be granted ten days time to enable him to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, since the sale is fixed for tomorrow i.e., on 22.03.2019, the interest of the petitioner will be protected.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner files an application for stay within ten days from today before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider the application for stay which may be filed by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of filing of such an application. It is further directed that for a period of ten days, the respondents shall not finalise the sale in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 27.02.2019.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

R Gururaj vs The Authorised Officer Karnataka Bank Ltd And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
21 March, 2019
Judges
  • Alok Aradhe