Karnataka High Court
Akbar Khan vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2019
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.15402 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
AKBAR KHAN
S/O ABDUL SATTAR KHAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.199, BANNIMANTAP INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU-570021.
... PETITIONER
(By Mr. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE-570 005.
3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS
NO.46, SUNDARAM TOWERS
WHITES ROAD, ROYAPETTAH
CHENNAI-600014.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
SUNDARAM BN PARIBAS HOME FINANCE
JLB ROAD, NO.33, VENJAY EDIFICE
2ND FLOOR, CHAMARAJAPURAM
MYSURU-570 005.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Mr. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2
Smt. R. RADHA, ADV. FOR R3 & R4)
---
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:21.2.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY
THE R-2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE R-3 & 4
BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD:18.2.2017 BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE R-3 & 4 BANK FOR A SETTLEMENT
WITHOUT PROCEEDING WITH THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 WHICH
IS AT ANNEXURE-K & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Mr.Abubacker Shafi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Smt.R.Radha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.02.2015 passed under 3 Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the petitioner has already assailed the validity of the order dated 21.02.2015 by way of an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru. The aforesaid aspect of the matter is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 18.02.2017, Annexure-K to the competent authority of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 -Bank and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the aforesaid respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 4 submitted that suitable action on the aforesaid representation shall be taken in accordance with law.
6. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of respondent Nos.3 and 4-Bank to consider and decide the representation with a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Ad-interim order, if any, granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the representation is decided by the concerned respondents.
Sd/-
JUDGE SS