IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.7471 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI Y RAGHURAM SHENOY S/O LATE RAMANATH SHENOY AGED 65 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S YELTHIMAR INDUSTRIES & TRADERS LAKSHMI NIVAS KALLARE MAIN ROAD PUTTUR POST & TALUK – 574 202 DAKSHINA KANNADA.
(By Mr. N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADV.,) AND:
SYNDICATE BANK A BODY CORPORATE HAVING ITS BRANCH AT PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574202 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-BANK, PUTTUR BRANCH TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.12.2018 IN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.N.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
3. In this petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the notice dated 17.12.2018 issued by respondent-Bank under Section 13(2) 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 today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter was amicably settled between the parties before the permanent Lok Adalat on 09.08.2018. However, notwithstanding the fact that the matter was amicably settled between the parties, the impugned notice dated 17.12.2018 has been issued.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. In response to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the petitioner has a right to file an objection under Section 13(3) of the Act. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioner files an objection within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the competent authority shall consider the objection filed by the petitioner by a speaking order in accordance with law and till the objection preferred by the petitioner is decided no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS