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.44483 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. K SRINIVAS AGED 37 YEARS S/O KRISHNAPPA, R/A NO.355, AMRUTHNAGAR MAIN ROAD, ALAHALLI/AVALAHALLI, ANJANAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 062. … PETITIONER (By Mr. KUMAR S S, ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, NO.28, 27TH CROSS, NEAR MONO TYPE BUS STOP, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 070.
2. SMT SHYLA J AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O DAYANANDA PRABHU R/AT NO.51,YADALAMNAGAR, LINGEGOWDA SMARAKA BHAVAN, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 061.
3. SRI DAYANANDA PRABHU AGED 50 YEARS S/O PRABHU, R/AT NO.51,YADALAMNAGAR, LINGEGOWDA SMARAKA BHAVAN, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 061. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. Y P GOKUL, ADV., FOR Mr. Y V PARTHASARATHY ADV., FOR R1 R2 & R3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the possession notice dtd:6.2.2016 issued by the R-1 Under Rule 8(1) of securitization and Re-Construction of Financial Assets and enforcement of security interest Act-2002 produced at Annexure-E is illegal and quash the same and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.P.Gokul, learned counsel for Sri.Y.V.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. 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).
3. 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.
Sd/- JUDGE RV