IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.25125 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI N SHASHIKUMAR S/O D N NARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEAES R/A NO.1292 GROUND FLOOR IST C MAIN ROAD 6TH CROSS MALAIMAHADESHWARA LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560072. … PETITIONER (By Mr. MARKANDA SHETTY, ADV. FOR Mr. R CHANNAKEHSAVA ADV.,) AND:
1. CORPORATION BANK MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BRANCH NO.721, 7TH MAIN MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560086 REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
2. M/S ROSHANA POWER SYSTEMS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR V LOKESH S/O VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.100/65, SRINIVASANAGAR SUNKADAKATTE, S G KAVAL BENGALURU-560091.
3. SMT NAGARATHNAMMA S/O VEKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.1292, 6TH CROSS NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560096. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. V B RAVISHANKAR ADV. FOR R1 (ABSENT) V/O DTD 13/06/2018 P DISSMISSED AGAINST R2 & R3) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue direction to Respondent No.1 not to take physical possession of the writ petition scheduled properties and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Markanda Shetty, learned counsel for Sri.R.Channakeshava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent No.1.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.1 not to take physical possession of the writ petition schedule properties.
b. Pass such other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.”
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
5. 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 under Section 17 of the Act within eight weeks from the date of receipt of 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