Sri. Aboobakkar Name Bett vs The Authorised Officer on 29 October, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Aboobakkar Name Bett vs The Authorised Officer on 29 October, 2018

Bench: B.Veerappa

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018

                        BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

         WRIT PETITION NO.46183/2017 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. ABOOBAKKAR NAME BETT,
       AGED 50 YEARS,
       SON OF LATE IBRAHIM B.K.,

2.     SMT. RAHMATH,
       W/O. SRI. ABOOBAKKAR NAME BETT,
       AGED 43 YEARS,

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO.25,
       BAITH-UL-FATHIMA, ANGARAGUNDY,
       BAIKAMPADY, MANGALURU-575 011.
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
                                     ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N., ADVOCATE)


AND:

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
CANARA BANK,
ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
1ST FLOOR, CIRCLE OFFICE,
BALMATTA ROAD,
MANGALURU-575 001.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
                                ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VENKATESH T. DESHPANDE, FOR
    SRI. V. HARIDAS BHAT, ADVOCATES)
                                 2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ANNEXURE-A    DATED:04.08.2017   ISSUED  BY   THE
RESPONDENT AND ETC.,

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

                             ORDER

Sri. Venkatesh T. Deshpande for Sri. V. Haridas Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned Annexure 'A' - the notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has been implemented. Sale made in favour of the Auction purchaser on 04.08.2017. Therefore, he submits that the prayer does not survive for consideration. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

2. Sri. Jagadish Baliga, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as long back as on 28.09.2017 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent for one time settlement. The same has not been considered. If it is so, it is for the petitioner to pursue 3 with the respondent to consider the said representation - Annexure 'G' in accordance with law.

3. In view of the above, the prayer sought for in the present writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty as prayed for.

It is needless to observe it is open for the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondent, if he is so aggrieved in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE snc ct-JLR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court