IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.4241/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S SHETRON ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.A/6, MIDC ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400093 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. KARTHIK M NAYAK.
AND:
... PETITIONER (BY SRI W.M. SUNDARAMURTHY, ADVOCATE) 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, 10/3/8, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
3. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, HEFC HOUSE, NO.51, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU-560051.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER MR. VISHWANATH HOOLI.
4. M/S NITESH ESTATES LTD., 7TH FLOOR, “NITESH TIMESQUARE”, NO.8, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MR. L. S. VAIDYANATHAN.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. L.V. APARNA, ASG FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.12.2018 BEARING REF:LOAN ACCOUNT NOA-6360223153(ANNX-A) ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE EXTENT OF THE PETIIONER'S SHARE OF 12,740.60 SQ.FT OF SUPER BUILT UP AREA IN PROPERTY BEARING MUNICIPAL NO.26/3-1 WITH PID NO.78-121-26/3- 1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri W.M. Sundaramurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. L.V. Aparna, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent No.1.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the action taken by the respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that against any impugned action, the petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner approaches the Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the Tribunal shall deal with the application as well as the application for stay, which may be filed by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously. Till the applications are filed before the Tribunal, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MD