IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.10667 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
S.KANTHARAJU S/O LATE A.SRINIVASAN, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.72, 1ST CROSS, ANDHRAHALLI, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 091 (BY MR R. CHANNAKESHAVA, ADV.) AND:
1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK #218, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, JP NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, TOWN, BANGALORE-560078 REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
2. SRI.N.SRIDHAR S/O LATE NAGANNA AGE 50 YEARS, 3. SMT. N.LEELA W/O N.SRIDHAR AGE 40 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.127, 1 & 2 FLOOR, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NILAYA 4TH CROSS, 38TH MAIN ROAD …PETITIONER ROSE GARDEN, J.P.NAGAR 6TH PHASE BANGALORE-560 078 (BY MR S.R.NARAYANAPPA, ADV FOR R-1, R-2 & 3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 NOT TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE WRIT PETITION SCHEDULED PROPERTIES. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO RESTRINE THE R-1 BANK FROM TAKING POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULED PROPERTY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.R.Channakeshava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.S.R.Narayanappa, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a direction to the respondent No.1 not to take physical possession of the writ petition scheduled properties.
4. In view of the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6594/2018 and for the reasons assigned therein, the petitioner has a remedy of filing an application under Section 17-4A of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
5. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioner avails of the remedy provided to him under Section 17- 4A of the Act within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Tribunal shall extend the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the petitioner and shall decide the application. Till then, the interim order, if any, shall continue. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV