Disposed

Sri. Channakeshava and Co. v. Autorized Officer (Msme)

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WP/7744/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka quashed a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The Court found an efficacious remedy available under Section 17 of the Act, reserved liberty to appeal to the DRT, and extended the interim order for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to file appeal to DRT within six weeks with benefit of Limitation Act Section 14; interim order continued.

Sri. Channakeshava and Co. Vs Autorized Officer (Msme) — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20373 WP No. 7744 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7744 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA AND CO REP. BY PROPRIETOR, MR. A.V.PARAMESHWARAIAH S/O MR. VENKATE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.01, H PRABHU SWAMY BUILDING, APMC YARD, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SUKANYA H D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AUTHORIZED OFFICER (MSME) EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED. B.H.ROAD, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS EQUITAS FINANCE LIMITED) TIPTUR BRANCH TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE, NOTICE MSME/2022-23/5413(4) OF THE ACT R/W RULE 8(1) SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT-2002 OF THE SAID RULES DTD 26.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:20373 WP No. 7744 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶22

(i) Issue Writ of Certiorari by quashing the impugned order of the possession notice, notice MSME/202223/54-13(4) of the act r/w rule 8(1) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security interest Act-2002 of the said rules dated 26/02/2024 issued by the respondent as per ANNEXURE 'F' and direct the respondent not to dispossession from the schedule property in the interest of justice in so far petitioner.

¶23

(ii) Pass such other order or directions, which this Hon'ble court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

¶25

Though several contentions have been urged by both

¶26

sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the availability of 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

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20373 WP No. 7744 of 2024

¶28

('SARFAESI Act' for short), without expressing any opinion on merits/de-merits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in accordance with law. It is further directed that if such an appeal is preferred within a period of six weeks from today, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In addition there to, the interim order passed by this Court in the present petition would continue to remain in force and operate with the parties for a period of six weeks from today.

¶29

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands

disposed off.

Sd/JUDGE

SMJ

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri. Channakeshava and Co. v. Autorized Officer (Msme)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Channakeshava and Co. v. Autorized Officer (Msme)

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 Y Bhaskar Vs Authorized Officer Union Bank of India

Babu Dvalapur Vs Canara Bank

Vinay Raj H P Vs M/S Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd.

Sri Kaveramme Agastheswara Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ashraf @ Mahammad Ashraf Vs the Union of India

Karnataka State Hockey Association (Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka