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

Sri L Dayananda Reddy vs The Authorized Officer And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|22 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.4454 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.L.DAYANANDA REDDY, S/O.LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.70/A, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEHIND ARTUKKULAM, APARTMENT (ROYAL CITADEL), MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 068.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHARATHKUMAR SHETTY, ADV.-ABSENT) AND:
1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, NO.13, PAXAL TOWERS, K.R.ROAD, OPPOSITE VANIVILAS HOSPITAL, BENGALURU-560 002.
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER.
2. MRS.GAYATHRI.D, W/O.DAYANANDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.70/A, BEGUR VILLAGE BEHIND ARTUKKULAM, APARTMENT (ROYAL CITADEL), MANIPAL COUNTY ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU-560 068.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.B.RAVISHANKER, ADV. FOR C/R1; V/O DATED 18.02.2019 PETITION DISMISSED AGAINST R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE DTD:16.8.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
2. Sri.V.B.Ravishanker, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1-Bank submits that in this petition, Possession Notice dated 16.08.2016 issued by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) is under challenge. It is further submitted that an alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner i.e., filing an application under Section 17 of the Act, against the notice which has been impugned in this petition.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy which is provided to him under Section 17 of the Act.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-
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 L Dayananda Reddy vs The Authorized Officer And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
22 July, 2019
Judges
  • Alok Aradhe