IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.54366 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI GOUTHAM RAMACHANDRAN S/O. G.S. RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY RAGHAVENDRA RAO, S/O D.T. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.1, MANASA ROAD INDIRA NAGAR MYSORE-560 010. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITYANANDA V. NAIK, ADV.-ABSENT) AND:
1. UNITED BANK OF INDIA HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE NO.11, HEMANTHA BASU SARANI KOLKATA-700 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. UNITED BANK OF INDIA BANGALORE CANTONMENT BRANCH 40/2 BRIGADE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER.
3. MR. T.N.S. MANJUNATH S/O. SRI T.K. NINGARAJEGOWDA MAJOR NO.22, BAIRAVA NAGAR DUBASI PALYA R.V.COLLEGE POST KENGERI BANGALORE-560 059.
4. MR. T.N.S. SATHISH S/O. SRI T.K. NINGARAJEGOWDA MAJOR NO.22, BAIRAVA NAGAR DUBASI PALYA R.V.COLLEGE POST KENGERI BANGALORE-560 059.
5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR CANTONMENT POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, A.G.A. FOR R5;
SRI S.K.M. SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2; R3 AND R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 NOT TO INITIATE ANY ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER’S SCHEDULE PROPERTY FOR RECOVERING THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT IF ANY IN FURTHERANCE OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 29.12.2009 VIDE ANN-S UNDER THE PROVISO OF SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None for the petitioner.
Sri S.K.M. Shetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.5.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned notice under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. In view of the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6594/2018 and for the reasons assigned therein, the petitioner has a remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioner avail of the remedy provided to him under Section 17 of the Act within four 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. Till then, interim order if any, shall continue.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST