Mohideen Bawa vs Union Bank Of India on 20 September, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mohideen Bawa vs Union Bank Of India on 20 September, 2019

Bench: B. Veerappa

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

                       BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

         WRIT PETITION NO.22735/2015 (GM-RES)


BETWEEN:

MOHIDEEN BAWA
S/O. MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT 'VALLURAN HOUSE'
POST: EDAYUR
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
KERALA.
                                         ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI USMAN P., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     UNION BANK OF INDIA
       A BANKING COMPANY INCORPORATED
       AND FUNCTIONING UNDER THE PROVISIONS
       OF THE BANKING COMPANIES
       (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF
       UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970
       HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE
       AT 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN
       NARIMAN POINT
       MUMBAI - 400 021.

       AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
       GANDHINAGAR BRANCH
       BENGALURU - 560 009
       REP. BY ITS
       CHIEF MANAGER/PRINCIPAL OFFICER
       AUTHORISED OFFICER.
                              2


2.   UNION BANK OF INDIA
     ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH
     AVENUE ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 002
     REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER,
     AUTHORISED OFFICER
     MR. PERCY JOSEPH DESMOND.
                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.03.2015 PASSED
IN C.MISC.NO.901/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT
BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

The petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking to quash the order dated 30.3.2015 passed in C. Misc. No.901/2015 by the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, as per Annexure-M to writ petition.

2. This Court on 04.06.2015 granted interim order for a period of three weeks. Subsequently, the said interim order was extended from time to time and it is 3 existing till today. The respondents have not filed any application for vacating interim stay.

3. Sri. Monesh Kumar K.B., learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and 2, submits that very writ petition filed against the impugned order is not maintainable since the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Security Interest Act, 2002. The said submission is placed on record.

4. Further, learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal as contemplated under the provisions of the DRT Act. The memo is placed on record.

5. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal as contemplated under the provisions of the DRT Act, 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

6. The interim order granted by this Court would enure to the benefit of the petitioner for a period of six weeks.

7. Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, after retaining a copy of the same.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cs/-

Ct-Ka

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court