IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.31453-454/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. M/s Sanjeevini Aqua & Beverages Rep. by its Proprietor:
Mr. L Siddaramaiah Site No. 43, 3rd Cross Hejjalla Gate, Bidadi Hobli Ramanagara Taluk.
2. Mr. L Siddaramaiah S/o Lakshminarayanappa D.No. 196/1, Maruthi Nilaya 4th Cross, A.G. Doddarangappa Road BSK 3rd Stage, Sriranganagara Bengaluru – 560 085. … Petitioners (By Smt. Kavitha D, Advocate - Absent) AND:
M/s Corporation Bank MIEL (MOTOROLA) Branch No. 66/11, Plot No.5, Bagamane Tech Park C.V. Raman Nagar Bengaluru – 560 098 Represented by its Authorised Officer …Respondent (By Sri V. B. Ravishankar, Advocate) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the E- Auction sale notice dated 7.7.2018 under Annexure-E issued by the Respondent Bank, etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Sri.V.B.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Perused the petitions. The petitions are admitted for hearing.
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner inter alia seeks for quashment of the auction sale notice dated 7.7.2018 and has sought for a writ mandamus directing the respondent – Bank to accept the offer made by the petitioner contained in Annexure-D.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank submitted that in pursuance of the impugned sale notice, the sale has already taken place and the property in question has been sold. It is also been submitted that one of the co-owners has challenged the auction taken by the respondent – Bank by view of filing a petition under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
5. 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 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, if so advised. Therefore no cause for interference at this stage is made out.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, the petitions are disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioners avail of the remedy provided to them under Section 17 of the Act within three 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 petitioners and shall decide the application. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
7. Needless to state that it is open to the respondent - Bank to consider the one time settlement offered which has been submitted by the petitioners, if not already considered.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* Ct-b