IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.11734 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Smt. Roopa Jagannath, Aged about 45 years, D/o Shri. Jagannath, Residing at No.363, 9th Main Road, Dollars Layout, 4th Phase, J. P. Nagara, Bengaluru – 560 078.
(By Sri. Vishwanath N., Advocate) AND:
The Authorized Officer, PNB Housing Finance Limited, No.5, Mathrushree Arcade, 100 Feet Ring Road, 1st Phase, 2nd Stage, BTM Layout, Bengaluru – 560 076.
… Petitioner … Respondent (By Sri. Lokesh K. V., Advocate for C/R) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notice for auction sale of property dated 28.02.2019, issued by the respondent bank in respect of property of the petitioner in the said auction notice as per Annexure – A and etc., This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Vishwanath N., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Lokesh K.V., learned counsel for the respondent.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the notice dated 28.02.2019 issued 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 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short).
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of `10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) and therefore, the impugned notice dated 28.02.2019 be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of challenging the action taken by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the Act and therefore, the petitioner should be relegated to avail the alternative remedy.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that since he is ready and willing to pay `10,00,000/-, the notice issued under Rule 8(6) of the Rules be quashed is without any legal foundation and does not deserve acceptance.
6. For the reasons assigned in the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.6594/2018, no ground for interference is made out with regard to the notice dated 28.02.2019 and the remedy available for the petitioner is to file an application under Section 17 of the Act.
7. Accordingly, petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-