IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.39483/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SHANTHA RAJU S/O MALLE GOWDA, R/AT NO.8/13, CHANDRASEKAR LAYOUT, RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAMA, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-04 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI N. SURESHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LIMITED NO.102-110, AVENUE PLAZA, AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560002 REP BY ITS MANAGER 2. MR P. S. VISHWANATH S/O PATHI SHANKAR NARAYAN, AGED 82 YEARS, PARTNER, M/S SHANKARANARAYAN JEWELLERS, NO.129, D.R.COMPLEX, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, D.V.G.ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-04 3. M/S SHANKARANARAYANA JEWELERS NO.129, D.R.COMPLEX, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, DVG ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-04 REP BY ITS PARTNERS 4. SRI P. V. MAHESH S/O SRI P. V. VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.8/13, SAI KRIPA, CHANDRASHEKAR LAYOUT ROAD, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO R-1 NOT TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE WRIT PETITION SCHEDULED PROPERTIES.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri N. Suresha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a direction to the respondent No.1 not to take physical possession of the property in question. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the premises, which are in his occupation. It appears that the action against the borrower is taken under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘the Act’ for short).
4. Needless to state that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy under Section 17 (4A) of the Act.
5. Accordingly, petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case he files an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid liberty, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MD