Disposed

Smt Aruna a L v. the Authorized Officer

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024WP/13518/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order permitting the bank to take possession of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that the dispute regarding outstanding dues should be adjudicated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the DRT, and the bank was directed not to take coercive measures for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within four weeks.

Smt Aruna a L Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33207 WP No. 13518 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 13518 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. ARUNA A.L, W/O SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 131/31, 8^TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, NORTH EAST MANSION, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 030.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA, CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 63/67, 24TH CROSS, KILAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. LOKESH K.V, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU CITY IN C.MISC NO.2145/2024 DATED 04/04/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:33207 WP No. 13518 of 2024

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”). By this order, the respondent Bank was permitted to take physical possession of the secured asset belonging to the petitioner, which had been offered as collateral for the loan borrowed by the petitioner.

¶23

This Court, vide an interim order dated 29.07.2024, granted a stay on the impugned order, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with the respondent Bank. The petitioner has complied with this direction and deposited the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with the respondent Bank in compliance with the interim order.

¶24

The dispute regarding the outstanding amount due to the respondent Bank can be adjudicated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. ITherefore, , this petition no longer requires adjudication by this Court.

¶25

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for redressal of any grievances regarding the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank. The petitioner is granted a

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33207 WP No. 13518 of 2024

¶27

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to approach the DRT.

¶28

The time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the present petition before this Court shall be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing an application or appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶29

The respondent Bank is directed not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner, including any action to take physical possession of the secured asset, for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶30

ORDERS

¶31

i) The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner.

¶32

ii) All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶33

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶34

Smt Aruna a L v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Aruna a L v. the Authorized 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

Renuka Bai Vs State of Karnataka

Alrm Nagappan Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. Shashikala N Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

T K Vasudevan Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank

Sri. M. H. Uma Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka