IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.52892/2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN SRI DEVICHAND JAIN S/O MANGAL CHAND HINDU AGED 48 YEARS, 702, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANASHANKARI, JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560082. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE – ABSENT.) AND 1. VIJAYA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE-BANGALORE NORTH PRIM ROSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560025, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
2. VIJAYA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE-BANGALORE NORTH PRME ROSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560025 REPRSENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
3. VIJAYA BANK RAJAJINAGAR BRANCH, NO.53, 41ST CROS, 20TH MAIN, II BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 REPRSENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANGER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P UDAY SHANKAR RAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R1 AND R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED.) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3 TO FURNISH COPIES OF ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE IN THEIR CUSTODY OBTAINED FROM SRI.RAGHAVAN FOR CREATION OF EQUITABLE MORTGAGE OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY & FURTHER DIRECT THE R3 SHALL NOT SELL, ALIENATE OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OFF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None appears for the petitioner.
Sri.P.Uday Shankar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia prays for a direction to the respondent No.3 to furnish original documents which are in their custody and to direct respondent No.3 not to alienate the schedule property without due process of law.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the respondent No.3, during the pendency of the petition, while invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), has taken possession of the property in question.
4. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy as provided under Section 17 of the Act. Needless to state that in case the petitioner avails of the remedy provided to him under Section 17 of the Act within three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Tribunal shall extend the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the petitioner and shall decide the application.
Sd/- JUDGE RV CT-HR