IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.45275/2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. REKHA W/O N NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 3086, 11TH CROSS R P ROAD, NANJANGUD MYSORE DISTRICT-571301 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI E RAJAGOPAL, ADV.) AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONAL & LEGAL) SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL UDUPI DISTRICT-576104 2. THE PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK REGIONAL OFFICE YAJAMANA ARCADE, PANCHAMANTHRA ROAD KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSORE-570023 3. THE MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK NANJANGUDU POST MYSORE DISTRICT-571301 4. SRI A SHANMUGAM S/O ANGAPPA CHETTIAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SRIKANTESWARA PROVISION STORE, RAMACHANDRA STREET, CHAMALAPURA NANJANGUDU POST MYSORE DISTRICT-571301 (BY SRI JNR BHAT, ADV. FOR R1 SRI M R SHASHIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2 & 3 NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W V/O DT.16.08.2016) ... RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 09.03.2013 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK VIDE ANN-D AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 NOT TAKE ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER WITHOUT FOLLOWING RBI BANKING RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SARFACIE ACT 2002.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the letter dated 09.03.2013 impugned at Annexure-D. The petitioner is also seeking that respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed not to initiate any further proceedings against the petitioner.
2. Respondents No. 1 to 3-Bank had initiated action against respondent No.4 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as the property in question is the secured asset in respect of the loan advanced by them. In the said process, the communication dated 09.03.2013 was issued to respondent No.4 and to one Sri Srikantaprasad who was the guarantor in respect of the said loan. It is at that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the property in question which is claimed as the secured asset by respondents No.1 to 3 was purchased by her under the sale deed dated 13.07.2009. In that light, since the action had been initiated against the property said to be purchased by the petitioner, the instant writ petition is filed.
3. This Court no doubt while directing notice to the respondents had directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the possession of the property in question. The said position has continued till this date. The respondents have filed their detailed objection statement disputing the contentions as put forth by the petitioner. In the objection statement, the preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the instant petition has been taken in view of the provision contained in Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Having taken note of the same, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is claiming right in respect of the property which is claimed as the secured asset by respondents No. 1 to 3, the right as claimed is to be determined in an appeal as provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
4. Hence, without adverting to the merits of the contentions, the petitioner is granted the liberty of filing the appeal as provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Since this Court at the first instance had granted the interim order, the same shall enure to the benefit of the petitioner till the DRT takes up the appeal for consideration, subject to the appeal being filed by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further clarified that if such appeal is filed, the DRT shall take note of the time spent before this Court and consider the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms