IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.35574 OF 2019 AND W.P.NOS.36498-36500/2019 (GM-DRT) Between:
M/s. Suraksha Properties Having address at No.67, Sri. Renuka Nilaya Near Lakshmi Temple Koramangala Bengaluru – 560 095 Through its partner Mr. Dinesh R (By Sri. Vignesh Shetty, Advocate) And:
1. The Recovery Officer-2 Debt Recovery Tribunal No.2 Having address at:
No.4, Jeevan Mangal LIC Building, Residence Road Bengaluru – 560 025 … Petitioner 2. Asset Reconstruction Co. India Ltd., Having address at “The Ruby”, 10th Floor, No.29, Seenapati Bapat Marg Dadar (West), Mumbai … Respondents (By Ms. Vaishali Shah, Advocate) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct respondent No.1 extend time period of depositing balance 75% of the bid within a period of three months from 06.08.2019 and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Vaishali Shah, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
3. When these matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and the petitioner be granted liberty to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Tribunal’ for short) along with an application for stay and till the consideration of application for stay, the amount deposited by the petitioner be not forfeited.
4. The aforesaid prayer has not been fairly opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner files an appeal along with an application for stay, application for stay filed by the petitioners shall be decided within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such an application in accordance with law by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties by the Appellate Tribunal.
6. Needless to state that till the application for stay is considered, the amount deposited by the petitioner shall not be forfeited.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-