IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.53629/2014 (GM-RES) AND WRIT PETITION NO.53832/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI RAGHAVAN S SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR MR. R SAMPATH KUMAR S/O LATE S RAGHAVAN R/AT FLAT NO.A-2, FIRST FLOOR, PAVAMANA PARADISE, 1-C-4/5, 3RD CROSS, 1ST PHASE, BEHIND CANARA BANK, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560085 ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHWETHA RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA, BENGALURU CANTONMENT BRANCH, NO.40/2, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER 2. T. N. S. MANJUNATH, S/O SRI NINGA RAJE GOWDA, R/A NO.22, BYRAVA NAGAR, DUPASIPALYA, R V COLLEGE (POST) KENGERI, BANGALORE-560059 3. T. N. SATISH, S/O SRI NINGA RAJEGOWDA, R/A NO.22, BYRAVA NAGAR, DUPASIPALYA, R V COLLEGE (POST) KENGERI, BANGALORE-560059 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. K. M. SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1 R2 AND R3 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEX-K DTD.17.11.2014 AFFIXED BY R-1 ON THE SCHEDULE-B PROPERTY OF THE PETITION.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Smt. Shwetha Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. S. K. M. Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. With consent of the parties, the petitions are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the notice dated 17.11.2014 issued 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 brevity).
4. A bench of this Court while entertaining the writ petitions had granted an interim order on 20.11.2014 and the aforesaid interim order has remained in force till date.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – bank submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned notice and in view of the interim order granted by this Court, no action against the petitioners has been taken.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission, the impugned notice issued to the petitioner on 17.11.2014, has lost its efficacy. Therefore nothing survives for adjudication in these writ petitions and accordingly they are disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to the petitioner in law, as and when occasion so arises.
7. With the aforesaid liberty, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
Judge RD