IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.24781 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHESHA, S/O LATE SRI CHELUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT, SOMANAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560082.
(BY MR GANESHMURTHY.G, ADV.) AND:
1. EQUITAS HOUSING FINANCE LTD. SPENCER PLAZA, 4TH FLOOR, PHASE II, NO.769, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600002. REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
2. MUTHURAJA.K.M, S/O LATE MUTHURANGAIAH, AGE 48 YEARS, 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O MUTHURAJA, AGE 35 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT B-82 KANAKPURA MAIN ROAD, SHIVAJI LAYOUT, SOMANAHALLI, 3RD BLOCK, SOMANAHALLI, …PETITIONER BANGALORE SOUTH KARNATAKA-560082 … RESPONDENTS (BY MR VIJAY.S, ADV. FOR R-1 R-2 AND 3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 NOT TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE W.P. SCHEDULED PROPERTIES AS PER MAGISTRATE ORDER DATED 24.10.2016. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO RESTRAIN THE R-1 FROM TAKING POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a direction to the respondent No.1 not to take physical possession of the writ petition scheduled properties as per Magistrate order dated 24.10.2016.
2. 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 17-4A of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
3. 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- 4A 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, if any, shall continue. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
4. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV