Karnataka High Court
A J Motors, vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 February, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.39152 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
AND WRIT PETITION NO.39316 OF 2016
Between:
1. A J Motors, Mandya
A registered Partnership Firm
Represented by its Partners.
2. Ajith B.S,
Aged about 31 years,
S/o B.K. Subramanya
No. C1 Building,
Industrial Area,
1st Stage, 1st Main,
Mandya - 571 403.
3. Jayanath G,
Aged 31 years,
S/o Gyan Prakash,
No.C1 Building,
Industrial Area,
1st Stage, 1st Main,
Mandya - 571 403.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. V.V. Gunjal, Advocate)
-2-
And:
1. Deputy Commissioner,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
Mandya
2. IDBI Bank,
By its Authorized Officer,
Anand Arcade, MIG,
AM Double Road,
Saraswathi Puram,
Kuvempu Nagara,
Mysuru - 570 023.
3. Divkar C P,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o late G Puttaswamy Gowda,
No.10, 5th Block, SBM Colony,
Srirampuram,
Mysuru - 570 023.
4. Tahasildar,
Office of the Tahasildar Mandya
Mandya - 571 401.
... Respondents
(By Sri. K.P. Yoganna, HCGP for R1 and R4;
Sri. K.V. Lokesh, Advocate for R2;
Sri. K.B. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for R3.)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct
the respondents to reopen the locks and put the
petitioners in possession of the premises since the
petitioner's dispossession is without jurisdiction and
excessive use of power against the lawful tenant without
-3-
due process of law and the proceedings are illegal,
arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice
and consequently to direct to drop all further
proceedings and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court in this petition against the action initiated on behalf of respondent No.2 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act') to take possession of the premises. This Court while taking note of the contention put forth had through the order dated 03.08.2016 granted the benefit of being put back in possession so as to carry on with their business.
2. Respondent No.2-Bank claiming to be aggrieved by the said order had preferred appeals in W.A.Nos.3289-3290/2016. The Hon'ble Division Bench -4- through the order dated 12.01.2017 had recorded the position that the petitioners herein had removed the materials, which were lying inside the premises, as was permitted by respondent No.2 herein. If that be the position, an order for restoration of possession does not arise. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench had ordered status quo till the writ petition is disposed of.
3. Since the petitioners claiming to have tenancy right over the Secured Asset, are before this Court, the petitioners in any event, have an alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, if the rights arising relating to tenancy is to be determined, the same is to be determined in such appeal and all contentions in that regard are left open. Since the Hon'ble Division Bench has granted status quo, the benefit of the same shall enure to the petitioners, if the petitioners desires to file an appeal before the DRT and if such appeal is -5- filed within four weeks from the date of which the copy of this order is available, the DRT shall take into consideration the time spent by the petitioners before this Court for the purpose of computation/condonation of delay.
In terms of the above, petitions stand disposed of. Registry to return the papers, if any, sought by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mds/-