IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7401 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. M/s.White Horse Network Services Pvt.Ltd., No.223, G.R.Arcade, 3rd Main Road, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru-560 003.
Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Kailasam.P 2. Mr.Kailasam.P, S/o Mr.P.M.Panchapakesan Iyer, No.46, 3rd Main Road, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru-560 003.
3. Mrs.Maithili Kailasam W/o.Kailasam.P, No.46, 3rd Main Road, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru-560 003. (By Sri.Govardhan D, Advocate) AND:
Karnataka Bank Limited, Asset Recovery Management Branch, No.105, III floor, Mohan Mansion, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Represented by its Chief Manager And Authorized Officer Mr.M.N.Dathathreya.
…Petitioners …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the impugned order dated 19.09.2018 produced at Annexure A passed by the learned LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru for having dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition No.422/2018, as not maintainable and consequently quash the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous petition No.5410/2017, dated 12.06.2018, on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bengaluru, produced at Annexure E.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The order passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act by the learned Magistrate on 12.06.2019 allowing the petition filed by the respondent-Bank was challenged in Crl.R.P.No.422/2018 by the petitioners herein. Said Criminal revision petition has also been dismissed on 19.09.2018 vide Annexure-A. Contending inter alia that respondent-Bank cannot proceed parallelly, namely, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of amount due as well as to take control of the secured asset by filing a petition under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. The impugned order is sought to be challenged. Section 14 of SARFAESI Act being a distinct provision which enables the secured creditor to proceed against the debtor for recovery of the loan amount by initiating proceedings under Section 14 of the Act and bring to sale the secured asset, would not bar the creditors from initiating such proceedings, de hors the proceedings initiated for recovery of amount due to it.
As such, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, petition is rejected.
In view of dismissal of the main petition, IA.No.2/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.2/2018 is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE ag