Disposed

M/S Pattadi Sanitary, v. the Authorized Officer / Chief Manager

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2024WP/4952/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a District Magistrate's order passed at the instance of Indian Overseas Bank in a writ petition. The High Court declined to decide on merits, noting an efficacious alternative remedy by appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and disposed of the petition with liberty to file such appeal within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to file Section 17 SARFAESI appeal before DRT within six weeks, with benefit of Section 14 Limitation Act.

M/S Pattadi Sanitary, Vs the Authorized Officer /… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:23969 WP No. 4952 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4952 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S PATTADI SANITARY, ”CITY LIGHT COMMERCIAL COMPLEX” OPPOSITE GOVT HOSPITAL MOODBIDRI – 574 227 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS MR. PATTADI BAVU IBRAHIM AND MRS.FATHIMA TILES AND SANITARY BUSINESS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER PARTNERSHIP ACT

¶7

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

MR PATTADI BAVU IBRAHIM S/O MR BAVU IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS PARTNER, M/S PATTADI SANITARIES PATADI HOUSE, A FEEZA COMPOUND, HOSANGADY POST, PERINJE – 574 242. BELTHANGADY TALUK

¶9

MRS FATHIMA S/O MR PATTADI BAVU IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PARTNER, M/S PATTADI SANITARIES PATADI HOUSE A FEEZA COMPOUND, HOSANGADY POST PERINJE – 574 242. BELTHANGADY TALUK

¶10

¶11

NC: 2024:KHC:23969 WP No. 4952 of 2024

¶12

MR PATTADI BAVU ABDUL LATHEEF S/O. MR. BAVU IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS PATTADI HOUSE, AFEEZA COMPOUND HOSANGADY, POST PERINJE – 574 242. BELTHANGADY TALUK

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER / CHIEF MANAGER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ASSET RECONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT REGIONAL OFFICE MANGALURU – 575 001.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. M R SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2020 IN MAG(2) CR 259/2020-96064/C4 PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE’S DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶23

“a) Set-aside the order dated 12.10.2020 in MAG(2)CR.259/2020/96064/C4 passed by Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate’s Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (Annexure – A).

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23969 WP No. 4952 of 2024

¶25

b) Grant such other relief/s, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant, under the circumstances of the petition, in the interest of justice.”

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶27

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, in the light of availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act’) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional DRT under Section 17 of the said Act of 2002 by filing an appeal in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. Further, if such an appeal is filed by the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today, petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:23969 WP No. 4952 of 2024

¶30

4. Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands

¶31

disposed of.

¶32

All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are

¶33

kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98

M/S Pattadi Sanitary, v. the Authorized Officer / Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pattadi Sanitary, v. the Authorized Officer / Chief Manager

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 Metalex Steel Strips Private Ltd. Vs the Authorized Officer

Sri. M. Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Ifrah Simeen Vs the Union of India

M/S. Pattadi Sanitary Vs the Authorized Officer/Chief Manager

Sri. S. Mahadevaswamy Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Smt. Shakunthala S.Rao Vs Karikal Anjaneya Temple