IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No. 11896/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S WYYECO TECHNOLOGY No.B-62, ITI ANCILLARY INDUSTRIAL AREA MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU – 560 048 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI HEMA S SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS No.212, II FLOOR, 18TH MAIN SUBRAMANYA NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 021 (BY SRI. ARUN K.S., ADV.) AND:
1 THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF MYSORE COOK TOWN BRANCH LEWIS ROAD CROSS WHEELERS ROAD EXTENSION BENGALURU – 500 084 2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF MYSORE STRESSED ASSET RESOLUTION CENTER (SARC) 1ST FLOOR, III BLOCK BKG COMPLEX, AVENUE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009 ... PETITIONER .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATARAMANA K.S., ADV. FOR C/R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO; QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION NOTICE DATED 16.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-BANK, THEREBY INTIMATING ABOUT THE SUCCESSFUL CONDUCTING OF THE E-AUCTION ON 16.02.2016 FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTIES MORTGAGED BY THE PETITIONER AS COLLATERAL SECURITY AND ALSO INTIMATING THE PETITIONER TO PAY BACK ENTIRE DUES WITH COSTS/CHARGES WITHIN 15 DAYS (I.E., 02.03.2016) FAILING WHICH THEY SHALL BE LEFT WITH NO OPTION THAN TO ISSUE SALE CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER VIDE ANNEXURES-Z & Z1.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the intimation notice dated 16.02.2016 whereunder the petitioner is intimated about the E-Auction sale being conducted on 16.02.2016 and also intimating the petitioner that the sale certificate in that regard would be issued to the successful bidder.
2. The action initiated by the respondent-bank is by invoking the provisions as contained in the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Rules thereunder.
In a normal circumstance, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any such action, they ought to have availed the remedy of appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, this Court had entertained the petition at the first instance and in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to save the property, the conditional order dated 08.03.2016 was passed granting liberty to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The subsequent order dated 16.03.2016 would disclose that the petitioner had not complied with the said condition and the request made by the petitioner to extend the time was rejected by this Court and the benefit of the interim order had been denied to the petitioner.
3. In that circumstance, when the condition imposed by this Court has not been complied so as to avail the benefit of discretionary order of this Court, the consideration of the petition at this juncture by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not arise. If at all the grievance of the petitioner still subsists, the petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. All contentions in that regard are left open subject to the condition that the petitioner files such appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms