Dismissed

Mr.S.Aravind v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2019WA/1249/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ appeals seeking to set aside a Single Judge's order denying writ jurisdiction. The court held that despite the lack of seal on the possession notice and non-registration of FIR, the appellant had specific statutory remedies under the SRAESA and Cr.P.C., and the writ court is not the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; limitation period extended by four weeks following the Single Judge's previous extension.

Mr.S.Aravind Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.1249 OF 2019(GM-RES)

¶8

AND

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NOs.2532-2533 OF 2019

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mr.S.Aravind S/o H.D.Srinivasa Murthy Aged about 51 years R/at No.36, 8^th Cross J.C.Nagar, Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore-560 086. ... Appellant

¶12

(By Shri.Ramananda A.D., Advocate)

¶13

And:

¶14

State of Karnataka

¶15

Hon’ble Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Law R/by its Secretary Government of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560 001.

¶16

The Commissioner of Police Infantry Road Bangalore-560 001.

¶17

¶18

ICICI Bank Limited

¶19

R/by its Managing Director

¶20

#4/10, 1^st Floor

¶21

West Wing, Mytree Centre Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 068. ... Respondents

¶22

(By Sri.S.H.Prashanth, AGA.)

¶23

¶24

These writ appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order dated: 08.03.2019 in WP Nos.7841-7843/2016 and allow the writ petition Nos.7841-7843/2016 as prayed.

¶25

These appeals, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, Chief Justice delivered the following:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

These appeals are filed by the writ petitioner before

¶28

the learned Single Judge. The prayers made in the writ petition are two fold. The first prayer was for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Police to register crime against the third respondent - ICICI Bank Ltd. The second prayer is for quashing the impugned symbolic possession notice issued by the third respondent.

¶29

The learned Single Judge, after noticing the

¶30

prayer made for challenging the action of taking symbolic

¶31

¶32

possession under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (for short, the said Act of 2002) observed that the appellant has a remedy under Section 17 of the said Act of 2002 In fact, the learned Single Judge observed that if an application under Section 17 of the said Act of 2002 is preferred within four weeks from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the order, appellant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶33

The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that symbolic possession notice does not bear the seal of the third respondent Bank and therefore, it appears that the same was not at all issued by the third respondent Bank. The second contention is that when a cognizable offence was disclosed on the basis of the complaint made by the appellant, a first information report ought to have been registered.

¶34

¶35

We have considered the submissions. If according

¶36

to the case of the appellant, the first information report

¶37

ought to have been registered and the same is not registered, the appellant has a statutory remedy of filing a private complaint under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.). He may also take recourse to sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, a writ as prayed directing registration of first information report cannot be issued.

¶38

We have perused the symbolic possession notice

¶39

issued on the letterhead of ICICI Bank which appears to

¶40

have been signed by its authorised officer. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly observed that the appellant must avail of the statutory remedy. The learned Single

¶41

Judge has also taken care of the issue of bar of limitation.

¶42

Hence, we find no reasons to interfere with the discretionary and equitable order passed by the learned

¶43

¶44

Single Judge. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed. Time of four weeks granted under paragraph 4 of the impugned order will stand extended for a further period of four weeks from the date on which a certified copy of the order is received by him.

¶45

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Cm/-

Mr.S.Aravind v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.S.Aravind v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Wadi Stone Marketing Co.(P) Ltd,. Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekhar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Annayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Titan Company Limited Vs State of Karnataka

The Union of India Vs M/S Eagle Mpcc (Jv)

Sri K Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka