IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.12804 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri.V.Kamalakannan, S/o Velunathan Aged about 49 years, R/at No.TF5, 3rd Floor, 10th Cross, R.R.Nagar, Idea Home, Bharathi Petrol Bunk, Bengaluru – 98.
Represented by GPA Holder, R.Divya W/o Mr.K.Ravichandra, Aged about 46 years, Divya Nilaya, No.510, Kalamma Road, Ramaswamy Palya, Bengaluru – 33.
(By Sri.Srinivas V, Advocate) AND:
M/s Vijaya Bank, Domlur Branch, No.308, 1st Main, 5th Cross, Domlur Layout, Bengaluru – 71 … Petitioner Represented by its Authorized Officer (By Sri.Vignesh Shetty, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent) … Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 15.07.2017 issued by the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru in C.Mis.50374/16 taken by respondent Bank u/s 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition with respect to schedule property and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Srinivas V, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel for caveator/respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the amount of loan, which he has incurred from the respondent – Bank and therefore, this writ petition should be entertained by this Court.
2. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This Court by order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.6594/2018 has held that in case any person is aggrieved by any of the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) or against the order passed under Section 14 of the Act, his remedy lies under Section 17 of the Act by filing an application.
4. For the reasons assigned in the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6594/2018, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition merely on the ground that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount due to the Bank. Even otherwise, the petitioner is under an obligation to pay the amount.
5. The aforesaid argument is of no assistance to the petitioner. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of application provided under Section 17 of the Act.
6. Needless to state that in case the petitioner files such application along with an application for stay, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall deal with the same in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-