IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.46304 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. K. S. NAGENDRA PRASAD S/O. K.S. SRIDHARAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS PROP. KANAKA FLORA VENTURE, KODIHALLI ROAD, H.M.DODDI, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562117. … PETITIONER (By SMT CHAMPOO KAVYA S, ADV., FOR DR. M SUNIL SASTRY ADV.,) AND:
1. M/S. VIJAYA BANK KANAKAPURA BRANCH, M G ROAD BANGALORE RURAL DISTRIST - 562117 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.
2. MR. K.S. SRIDHAR MURTHY S/O. SHESHAPPA K.T., AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT NO. 584, KODIHALLI ROAD, H.M. DODDI, KANAKAPURA TOWN-562117.
3. MR. C.R. NAGENDRA S/O. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/S NO.8 5TH MAIN BYRESHWARANAGAR NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560072.
4. MS. K.S. SHARMILA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O NARESH BABU R/AT NO.1832/33, 3RD "A" CROSS, "D" BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE – 560010. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. P UDAYA SHANKAR RAI, ADV. FOR R1 R2, R3 & R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash/set aside the impugned order vide Annexure-A in C.MISC. petitioner No.14/2013-14 passed by the district Magistrate, Ramanagara dtd.3.3.2015 and all action thereto and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Smt.Champoo Kavya S., learned counsel for Sri.M.Sunil Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.P.Udaya Shankar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned notice under Section 13(4) 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 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. Till then, the interim order shall continue if the petitioner has complied with the condition required therein.
Sd/- JUDGE RV