IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.30600 OF 2018 (GM-RES) Between:
Raghavendra Kothari, S/o Annayappa, Aged about 38 years, R/at No.1, Jayarama Reddy Building, Above Canara Bank, Chandapura, Bengaluru – 560 081.
(By Sri. Akil S., Advocate for Sri.Ranjith K.S., Advocate) And:
1. YES Bank Limited, 1st Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Municipal No.3, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
Represented by its Authorised Officer.
2. YES Bank Limited, YES Bank Tower, IFC 2, 23rd Floor, Senapathi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai – 400 013.
Represented by its Chairman.
… Petitioner 3. YES Bank Limited, Regd. & Corporate Office Nehru Circle, 9th Floor, Discovery of India, Dr.A.B.Road, Warli, Mumbai – 400 018.
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer.
…Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the notice of sale under Rule 6(2) and or 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 dated 13.06.2018 issued by 1st respondent vide Annexure – A and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Akil.S, learned counsel for Sri.Ranjith K.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of Sale Notice dated 13.06.2018 issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) read with Rule 6(2) and or 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
4. This petition is pending before this Court since 2018, in which no interim order has been passed. By now, the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notice must have been concluded. Even otherwise, the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act.
5. Accordingly, petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 17 of the Act, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-