IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.56567/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI DINESH KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE NAVARARAN MAL NANDAVATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, BYATARAYANAPURA TINDLU VILLAGE, YALAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI N SURESHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UCO BANK NO.238/35, 9TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER 2. SMT. SUMITRA NANDAWAT W/O DINESH KUMAR JAIN AGE 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, BYATARAYANAPURA TINDLU VILLAGE, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560054 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DIVAKARA E. T., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DTD 12.11.2018 VIDE ANNX-A; DIRECT THE R-1 FOR REGULARISING THE LOAN ACCOUNT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri N. Suresha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Divakara E.T., the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the sale notice dated 12.11.2018 vide Annexure-A.
4. In view of the decision of this Court in order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.6594/2018 and for the reasons assigned therein, the remedy available for the petitioner is to file an application 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).
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case he files an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE MD