IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.28548/2019 (GM-RES) & WRIT PETITION No.28955/2019 (GM-RES) Between:
1. Sri. Ramanna Hanumanthaiah, Aged about 66 years, S/o. Sri. Hanumanthaiah.
2. Sri. K.R.Mahesh Kumar, Aged about 40 years, S/o. Sri. Ramanna H.
Petitioners 1 & 2 are Residents of ‘Chandana’, Pragathinagar, Joga Road, Sagar-577 401, Shivamogga District. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Dwarakanath H.S., Advocate) And:
1. The Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Shivamogga District-577 201.
2. The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, SME Branch, 2nd Gate, Gokul Road, Urban Oasis Mall, Huballi-580 030.
3. State Bank of India, SME Branch, 2nd Gate, Gokul Road, Urban Oasis Mall, Huballi-580 030.
4. Sri.Veera Basappa Abbigeri, The Managing Director of M/s.Sreeshwar Electrical Private Limited, At No.29/B/19/A, Vibulatha, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main, Bharathinagar, Dharwad-580 001. ... Respondents (By Smt.Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash order passed by the R-1 dated 27.05.2019 vide Annexure-A and for a direction to proceed against R-4 and his properties diligently.
These petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Dwarakanath H.S., Advocate for petitioners and Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the remaining respondents.
3. The petitioners inter alia have sought quashment of order dated 27.05.2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘Act’) .
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the aforesaid order, the petitioners has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act and the petitioners be granted liberty to file an application for stay and till consideration of the application for stay, the petitioners’ possession over the property in question be directed.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners that in case the petitioners file an application under Section 17 of the Act along with an application for stay, the same be disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such application.
6. The Debt Recovery Tribunal shall decide the application seeking stay in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such application, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Till the application for stay is decided, status quo as it exists today with regard to possession in respect of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC/-