IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.10266-10267 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. B. K. Srinivasa, S/o Kote Rangaiah, Aged about 54 years, No.42, (Old No.68), “Harsha Nilaya”, 4th Main Road, 5th C Cross, MIG KHB Colony, 1st Stage, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 560 079.
… Petitioner (By Sri. Sharath Kumar Shetty, Advocate) AND:
The Hotel Industrialists Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Regd. Office “Sahakara Sourabha”, No.234, 2nd Cross, 4th Main, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru – 560 018. Represented by Authorized Officer.
… Respondent (By Sri. Lokesh K.V., Advocate for C/R) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notice dated 25.01.2019 vide Annexure – E issued by the respondent and etc., These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Sharath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Lokesh K.V., learned counsel for the respondent.
These petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. In these petitions, petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 14.02.2019 passed on an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
3. When a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner whether an appeal lies under Section 18 of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner answered in the affirmative.
4. In view of availability of alternative efficacious remedy and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON AND ORS.’, (2010) 8 SCC 110, I am not inclined to interfere in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is otherwise discretionary in nature. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal with regard to his grievance by filing an appeal.
With the aforesaid liberty, petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-