IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.39878-39881 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI A.T.THIMMAIAH, S/O A.T.THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 2. SMT. H.S.BHAGYAMMA, W/O A.T.THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. SRI A.T KIRAN KUMAR, S/O A.T.THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. SMT. A.T LAKSHMI, D/O A.T.THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.16, 1ST “D” MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, BSK 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE-560 085.
(BY SMT.PRAMILA M.NESARGI, SR.COUNSEL FOR MR.SHIVA SHANKAR.C, ADV.) AND:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE GRAIN MERCHANT’S CO -OPEARTIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.2, PAMAPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, …PETITIONERS CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018.
(BY MR.J.ARAVIND BABU, ADV.) - - -
… RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE NOTICE DT.7.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNX-J ANNOUNCING SALE OF THE SCHEDULE PREMISES, AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Smt.Pramila M.Nesargi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.J.Aravind Babu, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia have sought quashment of proclamation of sale notice dated 07.08.2015.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent has produced a memo in which it is stated that since in pursuance of the sale notice sale has not taken place, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in these writ petitions.
5. By way of rebuttal, learned Senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue whether or not the respondent has the authority to invoke the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is pending before the Supreme Court.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the petitions are disposed of with a direction that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court shall govern the disposal of these petitions as well.
Sd/- JUDGE RV