Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Harish Marappa vs Union Bank Of India Bvk

High Court Of Karnataka|20 February, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.26570 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. HARISH MARAPPA S/O MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.G002 GROUND FLOOR 8TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA VILLAGE JAKKASANDRA DAKHALE KORMANGALA 1ST BLOCK, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU-560 034.
REPRESETNED BY HIS SPA HOLDER SRI B NAGESH S/O LATE BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.281, VENKATAPURA VILLAGE JAKKASANDRA DAKHALE, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU-560 034.
(By Mr. LOKESHA M.Y. ADV.) AND:
UNION BANK OF INDIA BVK IYENGAR ROAD BRANCH SRI NANJUNDAPPA COMPLEX NO.210, 211, RT STREET BENGALURU-560 053 REPRESETNED BY ITS MANAGER.
(By Mr. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADV.,) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS PER THE NOTICE DTD:4.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AS PER ANNEXURE-A HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Lokesha M.Y., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned notice dated 04.06.2018 under Section 13(2) 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 avails off 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 principle contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the petitioner and shall decide the application.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Harish Marappa vs Union Bank Of India Bvk

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
20 February, 2019
Judges
  • Alok Aradhe