IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.28454-28456 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Sri. N. Ananda Murthy, S/o Sri. Narayanaswamy, Aged about 58 years 2. Sri. Vinay Ananda Murthy, S/o Sri. N. Ananda Murthy, Aged about 28 years 3. Smt. Divya Ananda Murthy, D/o Sri. N. Ananda Murthy, Aged about 30 years All are residing at No.331, Thanisandra, Arabic Collage Post, Bengaluru – 560 045.
(By Sri. Guruprasad A, Advocate) AND:
The Authorized Officer, NKGSB Co-Operative Banks Ltd, A Multi-State Co-Operative Bank, With Corporate Office at Mumbai, And one of the concerned branch at Ground Floor, New No.15, (Old No.458 & 459) 4th T Block, … Petitioners 18th Main Road, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 011.
… Respondent (By Sri. M. S. Suryanarayan Rao, Advocate for C/R) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, dated 25.06.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.165/2018, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 (Annexure-A).
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Guruprasad A., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri. M.S. Suryanarayan Rao, learned counsel for the C/respondent.
Petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). Against the aforesaid order, an appeal lies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
3. In view of the judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON AND ORS.’, (2010) 8 SCC 110, wherein while interpreting the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, once the proceedings under SARFAESI Act is initiated by the Bank, efficacious remedy in the form of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is provided to the petitioners and they should avail the same. The aforesaid decision was quoted with approval in the case of ‘AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER vs. MATHEW K.C’, (2018) 3 SCC 85. Similar view has been taken in ‘KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS’, (2011) 2 SCC 782 and it has been held that an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act lies and the High Court was not justified in entertaining the Writ Petition. The aforesaid view is reiterated in ‘AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER (supra).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the amount so as to regularize their loan amount within a period of two months from today.
5. Needless to state that in case such an application is filed before the competent authority within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the aforesaid authority shall consider and decide after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by a speaking order within one week therefrom. In addition, petitioners shall be at liberty to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Needless to state that in case such an appeal is filed within a period of three weeks from today, petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-