Sri Ismail Sharif vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 September, 2019

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ismail Sharif vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 September, 2019

Bench: Alok Aradhe

                         1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

     WRIT PETITION NO.24274 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI ISMAIL SHARIF
S/O ABDUL KALEEL SHARIF,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NEAR SAFARYAD MASJID,
SAFRIYABAD MOHALLA,
TIPPU ROAD, MANDYA CITY
AND CARRYING BUSINESS AT
NO.D8/1488/C-1
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BENGALURU-MYSURU ROAD,
1ST MAIN, 1ST STAGE, NO.C-1
MANDYA CITY - 571 401
                                ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.K.REVANASIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
       MANDYA DISTRICT,
       MANDYA-571 401

2.     THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
       IDBI BANK
       ANAND ARCADE,
       MIG 11, V.M.DOUBLE ROAD,
       SARASWATHIPURAM,
                           2


     KUVEMPUNAGARA
     MYSURU-570 009

3.  SRI.C.P.DIVAKAR
    S/O SRI. LATE G. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
    R/AT NO.10, 5TH BLOCK,
    SBM COLONY,
    SRIRAMPURA,
    MYSURU-570 023
                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD 08.02.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN
M.A.G(5) 03/2015-16 VIDE ANNX-M AND ETC.,

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON                FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                THE
FOLLOWING:-

                      ORDER

Sri. H.K.Revanasiddappa, learned counsel for petitioner.

Sri.M.Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.

2. In this petition, the petitioner, who is a tenant has assailed the validity of the action taken by respondent No.1 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

3. In view of the decision of this Court in the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.6594/2018 and for the reasons assigned therein, the remedy available for the petitioner is to file an application under Section 17(4A) of the Act.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period 4 of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

5. Needless to state that in case, the petitioner files such an application within the aforesaid period, he shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE dn/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court