IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28437/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN :
V.Srinivasa Prasad S/o G.Venkata Doss Aged about 55 years R/at. No.894, 7th Main, 3rd Stage, Srinivasaiah Block, RR Nagar, Bengaluru-560 098.
… Petitioner (By Sri S.N.Aswathnarayan, Advocate) AND :
1. State Bank of India Stressed Asset Recovery Branch SARB-II (40564), 1st Floor, 3rd Block, BKG Complex Mysore Bank Circle, Avenue Road, Bengaluru-560 009 Represented by its Authorized Officer Sri Suresh A., E-Mail Id: assetrcovery@sbi.co.in 2. Chief Manager/Assistant General Manager State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch, II Floor, ‘A’ Block, BKG Complex, State Bank Compound Mysore Bank Circle, K.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 009.
3. M/s. Hosur Peoples Educational Trust (Regd.) Office at Errandapalli Village Beerpalli (PO), Via Ramapuram, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District (T.N.) Represented by its Chairman & also Managing Trustee Sri Kavuri Prasad Rao S/o Sri K.Venkata Narayana.
… Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice of E-Auction sale cum tender Notice vide tender dated 17.06.2019 (Annexure-H) and the Public Notices published in “Indian Express” and “Samyuktha Karnataka” dated 22.06.2019 (AnnexuresJ1 & J2), issued under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), by the R-2 notifying the schedule property of the petitioner for public action, towards recovery of alleged dues to the State Bank of India and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Mr.S.N.Aswathnarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of E-auction Sale-cum-Tender Notice dated 17.6.2019.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is one of the 16 guarantors to the transaction in question which likely comes to approximately to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, the property of the petitioner is worth of Rs.5 Crores. However, he fairly submitted that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by filing an application under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’ for short) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and he may be permitted to avail the said remedy.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act along with an application for stay.
5. Needless to state that in case the petitioner files such an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act along with an application for stay, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall decide the application for stay after hearing the parties by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of filing of such an application.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-