Smt. G. Sujatha vs The General Manager (Finance) on 26 April, 2019

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. G. Sujatha vs The General Manager (Finance) on 26 April, 2019

Bench: Alok Aradhe

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

       WRIT PETITION NO.18153 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. G. SUJATHA
D/O. G. MALLESHAPPA
OCC: HOUSE WIFE
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.2, 1ST CROSS ROAD
OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD
BASAPPA GARDEN
CHIKKABANAVARA POST
BENGALURU-560 090.                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI GEORGE ANTHONY CRUZE AND
    SRI A. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.     THE GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE)
       LHO, STATE BANK OF INDIA
       ST. MARK'S ROAD
       BENGALURU-560 001.

2.     THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
       STATE BANK OF INDIA
       RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE
       -RACPC-BALLARI
       1ST FLOOR, SBM BUILDING
       STATION ROAD
       BALLARI-583 101.

3.     THE CHIEF MANAGER/
       AUTHORIZED OFFICER
                             2


     STATE BANK OF INDIA
     RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE
     -RACPC-BALLARI
     1ST FLOOR, SBM BUILDING
     STATION ROAD
     BALLARI-583 101.

4.   G. MALLESHAPPA
     S/O. G. THIMMAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
     OCC: AGRICULTURIST
     R/AT DOOR NO.18, WARD NO.16
     NEAR M.G. OCTROI GATE
     ANANTHAPUR ROAD
     BALLARI-583 101.

5.   K.P. SRINIVASULU
     S/O. K.P. BHEEMALINGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     OCC: BUSINESSMAN
     R/AT NO.2, SAILAVANYA NILAYA
     2ND CROSS, VISHALNAGAR
     BALLARI-583 101.                  ... RESPONDENTS


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY R3 BANK BY ORDER
DATED 19.02.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                       ORDER

Sri George Anthony Cruze and Sri A. Nagaraj, learned counsel for petitioner.

2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned sale notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

3. In view of the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6594/2018 and for the reasons assigned therein, the petitioner has a remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioner avail of the remedy provided to her under Section 17 of the Act within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Tribunal shall extend the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the 4 Limitation Act, 1963, to the petitioner and shall decide the application.

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court