Disposed

Sri Abdul Khader v. Sadath Ali Siddiqui

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2021WP/3628/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were disposed of. The court held that an alternate remedy under Section 17 exists and granted a three-week respite to petitioners to avail it, restraining the respondent Bank from precipitatory action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to avail alternate remedy under Section 17 within three weeks; interim stay on precipitatory action by Respondent Bank.

Sri Abdul Khader Vs Sadath Ali Siddiqui — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3628 OF 2021(GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.3680 OF 2021(GM-RES)

¶6

IN W.P.NO.3628/2021:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. ABDUL KHADER, S/O ABDUL SAMAD, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.16, GROUND AND 1^ST FLOOR DUPLEX HOUSE, 12^TH CROSS, KANAKANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 032.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SADATH ALI SIDDIQUI, S/O MOHAMMED NAJBATH ALI SIDDIQUI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.15, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, MUDDAMMA GARDEN, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 046.

¶13

BANK OF MAHARASTRA, BRIGADE ROAD BRANCH, NO.55, REST HOUSE ROAD, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V.C.O. DATED 07/09/2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF XI ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

¶16

¶17

BANGALORE IN CRL.MISC.50447/2019 DATED 5.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶18

IN W.P.NO.3680/2021:

¶19

BETWEEN:

¶20

SRI. VENKATESH MURTHY S/O LATE B V BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, 1^ST FLOOR, 12^TH CROSS, KANAKANAGAR, R T NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶21

…PETITIONER

¶22

(BY SRI.AMARESH A ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SADATH ALI SIDDIQUI, S/O MOHAMMED NAJBATH ALI SIDDIQUI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.15, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, MUDDAMMA GARDEN, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 046.

¶25

BANK OF MAHARASTRA, BRIGADE ROAD BRANCH, NO.55, REST HOUSE ROAD, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶26

… RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. PRAKASH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V.C.O. DATED 07/09/2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF XI ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN CRL.MISC.50447/2019 DATED 5.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶29

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The grievance of the petitioners is against the order dated 05.12.2019 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A which is made under the provisions of Section 14 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002.

¶33

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank vehemently opposes the writ petition contending that petitioners have an alternate & equally efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the 2002 Act and therefore, there being no explanation for not availing the same, writ relief cannot be granted to the petitioners. There is force in his submission and therefore, petitioners need to be relegated to the alternate remedy as pointed by the learned Panel Counsel.

¶34

To avail the alternate remedy, petitioners have

¶35

to be given some reprieve which is being granted by the Benches of this Court ordinarily in cases of the kind as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶36

¶37

In the above circumstances, these petitions are disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy within a period of three weeks and till this three weeks expires, the respondent – Bank shall not take any precipitatory action against the petitioners. All contentions are kept open.

¶38

The request of the petition that whatever arguable delay is occasioned needs to be condoned because of pendency and other collateral proceedings hitherto taken shall be considered by the DRT itself a bit leniently and in accordance with law.

¶39

Ordered accordingly and petitions are disposed off.

¶40

Registry to return the impugned order to the

¶41

petitioner after retaining copies thereof in the file.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Bsv

Sri Abdul Khader v. Sadath Ali Siddiqui

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Abdul Khader v. Sadath Ali Siddiqui

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

Sri H Krishnappa Vs the Deputy Registrar of

Sri Manish B Gajria Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Dakshina Murthy Vs the Principal Secretary to

Karnataka State Government D Group Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Yojaka India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Yojaka India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka