Karnataka High Court
Smt V Parameshwari vs The Bangalore City on 3 July, 2019
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NOS.26820-26826 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
Between:
1. Smt. V.Parameshwari,
W/o P.V.Vijayakumar,
Age 65 years,
No.502, 2nd Floor,
Krishna Building,
Nagayanapalya, 3rd Cross,
M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 033.
2. Sri.Siddharthan,
S/o late P.Muthukumar,
Aged about 59 years,
No.502, 1st Floor,
Krishna Building,
Nagayanapalya, 3rd Cross,
M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 033.
3. Smt. Kalyani,
W/o Muthukrishnan,
Aged about 53 years,
No.502, 1st Floor,
Krishna Building,
Nagayanapalya, 3rd Cross,
M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 033.
2
4. Sri.Karunakaran T.,
S/o Thangaraj,
Aged about 34 years,
No.502, Ground Floor,
Krishna Building,
Nagayanapalya, 3rd Cross,
M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 033.
5. Sri.R.Dasaraj,
S/o Ramu,
Aged about 58 years,
No.502, 2nd Floor,
Krishna Building,
Nagayanapalya, 3rd Cross,
M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 033.
6. Sri.B.Annasab,
S/o Bhem Gowda,
Aged about 53 years,
No.502, 1st Floor,
Krishna Building,
Nagayanapalya, 3rd Cross,
M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 033.
7. Sri.G.Elaiyaraja,
S/o K.Gandhi,
Aged about 34 years,
No.502, Ground Floor,
Krishna Building,
Nagayanapalya, 3rd Cross,
M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 033.
... Petitioners
(By Sri.Krishnappan N, Advocate)
3
And:
1. The Bangalore City
Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
No.3, 1st Floor,
Pampamahakavi Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
Represented by its
Authorized Officer.
2. Sri.Gopalakrishnan R.,
S/o D Raman,
R/at No.502,
Krishna Building,
Nagayanapalya,
M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 033.
Present R/at
Anugraha Apartment,
4th Floor, Near
Kodandaramaswamy Temple,
Subbayana Palya,
Bangalore - 560 033.
...Respondents
(By Sri.K.V.Lokesh, Advocate for C/R1)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to
quash the impugned order passed by the XI
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Bengaluru in the file C.Misc.50476/2018 dated
14.02.2019 produced herein as per Annexure - A
and etc.,
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
4
ORDER
Sri.Krishnappan.N, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.K.V.Lokesh, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No.2.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek quashment of the impugned order passed by the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated 14.02.2019 passed in a proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 5 Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) as well as a writ of mandamus directing respondent NO.1 bank to restore physical possession of the petitioners into their original schedule premises.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that against the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17(4-A) of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the petitioners be granted liberty to file an appeal along with an application for stay. It is also submitted that the belongings of the petitioners are in the premises, which have been seized by the respondent No.1 and one of the petitioner's husband is an ex-serviceman, who is suffering from paralysis.
6
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submitted that they have no objection if the petitioners take out their belongings in the presence of police authorities.
6. In view of submissions made and in the facts of the case, it is directed that in case petitioners file an application under Section 17(4-A) of the Act along with an application for stay, the aforesaid application shall be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by a speaking order within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such application.
7. The Bank shall seek police assistance from the jurisdictional police, which shall be provided to them and thereupon, the officers of the Bank shall permit the petitioners to take out their belongings.
7
8. Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate assures this Court that suitable arrangement shall be made to accommodate the ex-serviceman-husband of petitioner No.1, who is suffering from paralysis in any of the shelter rooms belonging to the Government.
9. Needless to state that the aforesaid petitioner No.1 shall be at liberty to approach Department of differently abled person and Senior Citizens Empowerment, Ground Floor, V.V.Tower, Bengaluru.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE dn/-