IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.10682/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI RAVISHANKAR, S/O MARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SUNANDA STORES, NO.43, GROUND FLOOR, JUMA MASJID ROAD, MAKKALA KOOTA, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU-560066. ..PETITIONER (BY SRI G.A. MITHUN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SYNDICATE BANK, CITY MARKET BRANCH, BANGALORE-560002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2. SRI H.L. VASUDEV, S/O LATE H.N. LEPAKSHI, NO.30/2, NAGARATHPET CROSS, GANIGARA ‘A’ LINE, BENGALURU-560002. ..REPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.2.2019 AFFIXED ON THE WALL OF PETITIONER’S SHOP PREMISES ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE/RECEIVER OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (DRT) IN DCP NO.6336/2010 IN O.A.NO.294/2009 IN SYNDICATE BANK V/S MIRACLE GRAPHICS AND OTHERS UNDER RECOVERY OF DEBTS AND BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1993, VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY NOT TO TAKE FORCIBLE POSSESSION BY DISPOSSESSING THE PETITIONER FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri G.A. Mithun, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice dated 21.2.2019 issued by the counsel pertaining to act on the authority of the respondent No.1 – Bank.
3. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the counsel has no power to vacate the premises, which is in possession of the petitioner as a tenant, with the assistance of the police authorities.
4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of the notice, it is evident that it makes reference to the order dated 18.9.2018 passed by the Recovery Officer-II, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bangalore. The petitioner is free to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. Needless to state that any action sought to dispossess the petitioner from the premises in question shall be taken strictly in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MD