IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.24493 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI PAMPAPATHI S/O SHIVAJI KELAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O P.108, NO.11, 12 & 13 RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, P.B.ROAD, RANEBENNUR … PETITIONER (BY SRI.G.K.BHAT, ADV.) AND:
1. THE CANARA BANK GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING AND A BANKING COMPANY HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.112, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK RANEBENNUR BRANCH RANEBENNUR HAVERI DISTRICT-581 115.
3. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE B.N.NAGAR, HUBLI-580 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKATESH T.DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR SRI V.HARIDASS BHAT, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED: 25.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.G.K.Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.Venkatesh T.Deshpande, learned counsel for Sri V.Haridass Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the notice dated 25.04.2017 issued by 3rd respondent under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that being aggrieved, the petitioner has already taken recourse to the remedy of an application under Section 17 of the Act and therefore, the aforesaid prayer does not survive for consideration. It is further submitted that the petitioner is interested in settlement of the loan and petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation in this regard to the respondent-Bank and the Bank shall decide the same, in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that in case such a representation is submitted, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law expeditiously.
6. In view of the submission and the facts of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent-
Bank. In case petitioner submits representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the respondent-Bank shall consider and pass orders on such representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
It is made clear this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the case.
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV