IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.25551 OF 2018 (GM - RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.A.RATHNAKARA, S/O AGAIAH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SMT. A.U.THEJAVATHY, W/O K.A.RATHNAKARA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/A SRI.VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, NO.9, 4TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, HOYSALA NAGARA, DOORAVANINAGARA POST, BANGALORE – 560 016.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
VIJAYA BANK, NO.23/24, INFANTRY ROAD BRANCH, BANGALORE – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.V.LOKESH, ADVCOATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH DEMAND NOTICE VIDE ANNEXURE – E DATED 01.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. P.H.Virupaksha, learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
Sri. K.V.Lokesh, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsels for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioners, inter alia, prays for the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ or Order or Direction in the similar nature quashing Demand Notice vide Annexure-E dated 01.06.2018 issued by the Respondent-Bank.
(ii) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or Direction holding that the action of the respondent bank in treating the accounts of the petitioners herein as Non-Performing Assets is illegal and direct the respondent bank to regularize the accounts of the petitioners herein.
(iii) Grant such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity”.
3. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the order which is impugned in this petition is a Demand Notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). It is further submitted that on the last date of hearing i.e., on 17.01.2019, the Bench of this Court had directed the Respondent-Bank to secure instructions with regard to the amount which was required to be paid to the Bank by the petitioners to regularize the loan account.
4. In pursuance of the said order, learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank has submitted that amount of Rs.16,71,938/- is required to be paid by the petitioners to regularize the loan account.
5. The aforesaid submission of fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. It is a well settled law that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted to decide the disputed question of facts and in any case, this Court has no means to record a finding as to what is the amount which is payable by the petitioners to the Bank so as to regularize their bank account.
7. In any case, since the Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been issued to the petitioners, the petitioners have a statutory remedy under Section 13(3) of the Act for a reply to the aforesaid Demand Notice and bringing all the relevant facts including the payment made by the petitioners under the impugned Notice. As such, the petitioner can reply to the aforesaid Notice within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Respondent-Bank shall consider the reply filed by the petitioners and shall decide the same by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of two weeks therefrom.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.