IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.40056 OF 2018 (GM - RES) AND WRIT PETITION NOs.40243-40244 OF 2018(GM - RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. SHREEDEVI INFRA –CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.139/B, 10TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SANDHYA U PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH I, SPENCER TOWERS, NO.86, MG ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DATED 31.07.2018 PUBLISHED IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS NEWS PAPER DATED 03.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE – J ISSUED BY RESPONDENT BANK IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Smt. Sandhya.U.Prabhu, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. T.P.Muthanna, learned Counsel for the respondent.
None appears for the petitioner.
2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 21.1.2019 even when the matter was taken up in the second round and none appeared on behalf of the petitioner even today.
3. In these petitions, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of sale notice dated 31.7.2018 issued under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a bench of this Court by an ad-interim order dated 10.9.2018 had permitted the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5 crores to the respondent-Bank and subject to the aforesaid condition, the E-auction sale which was scheduled to be held on 10.9.2018 was stayed. However, the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid condition and has not deposited the amount of Rs.5 crores as directed by the bench of this Court vide order dated 10.9.2018. Besides, it is also submitted that the petitioner may be relegated to the remedy provided to, under Section 17 of the Act.
5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.
6. This Court, by an order dated 30.1.2019 passed in W.P.No.6594/2018 has already held that in case of an order under Section 13(4) and Section 14 of the Act, the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved person is to take recourse to Section 17 of the Act and in such a case, the writ petitions should not normally be entertained.
7. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid order and taking into account the conduct of the petitioner in not complying with the direction contained in the order dated 10.9.2018 passed by a bench of this Court, I do not find any ground to entertain these writ petitions.
8. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of, with the liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy provided to it under Section 17 of the Act.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp