Dismissed

Smt S Reddamma v. Corporation Bank

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024WP/35305/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lessees claiming under the borrower challenged the bank's recovery notice via writ petition. The court held the writ not maintainable given the statutory remedy under Section 17 SARFAESI Act and permitted them to approach the Tribunal with limitation exclusion for time spent in this petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to file Section 17 SARFAESI application within four weeks with limitation exclusion for time spent in this petition.

Smt S Reddamma Vs Corporation Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34463 WP No. 35305 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 35305 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT S REDDAMMA

¶9

W/O RAGHUNATH

¶10

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶11

SRI SANTOSH V VAARANKER S/O SRI VINAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶12

SRI DURAICHAMY

¶13

S/O KALIYAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

ALL ARE R/AT NO.14/8, 7^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR, BSK 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE 560050

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI VENKATARAMANA K S, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34463 WP No. 35305 of 2015

¶19

AND:

¶20

CORPORATION BANK

¶21

SRINAGAR BRANCH , NO.20, 80 FEET ROAD, SRINIVASANAGAR, BANGALORE 560060 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶22

SRI CHANDRABABU NAIDU V S/O SRIRAMULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT 14/8, II FLOOR, 7^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR BSK 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE 560050

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI V B RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶25

SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 28.05.2024)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 14.08.2015 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT-BANK VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:34463 WP No. 35305 of 2015

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners claiming to be lessees under respondent No.2 are challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 -Bank. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposing the maintainability of the writ petition submits that the petitioners have remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act”).

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to dispute the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable. 3. The petitioners are at liberty to avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. If the appropriate applications / petition is filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the competent authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, the competent authority/Tribunal shall exclude the period

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:34463 WP No. 35305 of 2015

¶36

spent in this petition before this Court in computing the

¶37

limitation.

¶38

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶39

CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Smt S Reddamma v. Corporation Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt S Reddamma v. Corporation Bank

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

Smt. Shakunthala Devi Vs Sri. Rajkumar

Mr D G Eshwarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Siraj Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

M/S Saravaloka Services Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Govindaraju Vs Corporation Bank

Abdul Aziz .a Vs the Branch Manager Canara Bank