Dismissed

G Chandrashekar v. Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2021WP/6707/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash a possession notice issued by a bank. The Court found no special reasons to bypass the alternate remedy under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner permitted to avail alternate remedy under Section 17(4A) of SARFAESI Act; period spent in writ petition to be discounted towards limitation.

G Chandrashekar Vs Authorised Officer — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6707 OF 2020(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE G RAMDAS, NEAR UMAMAHESHWARA KALYANA MANTAPA, HADDINAGUNDA ROAD, BALLARI – 583 101.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, REGION IV, SBI BUILDING, STATION ROAD, BALLARI – 583 101. KARNATAKA.

¶13

M/S RAJIV TRAVELS, REP BY ITS PARTNERS,

¶14

A. RAMPRAKASH REDDY,

¶15

B. RAVI PRAKASH REDDY, BOTH SONS OF LATE H RAJAGOPAL REDDY, NO.2A, GSR COMPLEX, K C ROAD, BALLARI – 583 101.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B N TULSI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶19

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 13.11.2019 (ANNXX-A) ISSUED BY THE R1 BANK AGAINST THE

¶20

¶21

SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Both the sides agree that an alternate & equally efficacious remedy avails to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 17(4A) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; no special reasons are shown as to why the said remedy should be circumvented and the writ petition be heard on merits.

¶25

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy as suggested by learned Panel counsel for the respondent-Bank.

¶26

The period spent in prosecuting the writ petition is liable to be discounted while computing the period of limitation prescribed by law for availing the remedy in question; all grounds are kept open.

¶27

¶28

Registry is directed to return the impugned order

¶29

after retaining a copy thereof in the file.

¶30

The respondent who is non-suiting the petitioner on

¶31

the ground of alternate remedy shall not precipitate the matter for a period of three weeks from this day.

¶32

No costs.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Bsv

G Chandrashekar v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Chandrashekar v. Authorised Officer

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. Karnanda P Subbaiah Vs Smt. Muthamma @ Shilpa

Shanthi Charitable Trust (Registered) Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Sri. Prasanna Kudtarkar Vs Smt. Vidya

Smt. M B Vedavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Dalita and Bovi Vs Government of Karnataka