This document is a court order from the High Court of Karnataka regarding a writ petition filed by Mr. C.M. Thimmaiah against State Bank of India and M.D. Seshadri. The petitioner is a tenant in possession of a property and received an eviction notice from the bank regarding recovery proceedings on the property. The court order disposes of the petition by granting the petitioner 4 weeks to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for relief regarding the auction, and restrains the bank from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the property during this period. The court kept open the contentions of both parties for consideration by the DRT.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Karnataka regarding a writ petition filed by Mr. C.M. Thimmaiah against State Bank of India and M.D. Seshadri. The petitioner is a tenant in possession of a property and received an eviction notice from the bank regarding recovery proceedings on the property. The court order disposes of the petition by granting the petitioner 4 weeks to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for relief regarding the auction, and restrains the bank from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the property during this period. The court kept open the contentions of both parties for consideration by the DRT.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Karnataka regarding a writ petition filed by Mr. C.M. Thimmaiah against State Bank of India and M.D. Seshadri. The petitioner is a tenant in possession of a property and received an eviction notice from the bank regarding recovery proceedings on the property. The court order disposes of the petition by granting the petitioner 4 weeks to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for relief regarding the auction, and restrains the bank from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the property during this period. The court kept open the contentions of both parties for consideration by the DRT.
MR. C.M.THIMMAIAH S/O C.D.MAADAPPA AGED 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1, FLAT NO.S-002 2 ND FLOOR, PLATINUM PARAMOUNT 8 TH CROSS, SHARADHA NAGAR YESHWANTHPUR, JALAHALLI P.O., BANGALORE-560 013 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI T.A.CHANNAKESHAVA REDDY, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH 1 ST FLOOR, BANGALORE CITY BRANCH J.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560 002
2. M.D.SESHADRI NO.6, GURUKRUPA 3 RD CROSS, DEVAPPA GARDEN R.M.V II STAGE BANGALORE-560094 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1) (BY SRI N. SURESH, ADV., FOR R2)
2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 2.5.12 ISSUED BY R1 VIDE ANNX-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner by contending that he is a tenant in possession of the premises shown in the schedule of the writ petition, on the basis of a document dated 16.01.2012 executed by respondent No.2, has filed this writ petition to quash the notice dated 02.05.2012 as at Annexure-D, issued by respondent No.1.
2. By the said communication, respondent No.1 notified the petitioner, of the credit facilities sanctioned to respondent No.2, by securing equitable mortgage of the immovable property / petition schedule property and the recovery proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the notice issued demanding payment of the banks due under Section 13(2) of the Act on 07.03.2009 and the
3 symbolic possession having been taken on 17.09.2009 and its publication in newspapers on 23.09.2009. Petitioner was notified that the property would be brought to sale as per the provisions of the said Act for realization of the dues and he was requested to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the property to enable the bank to hand over the same to the successful tenderer / bidder, in the auction proposed to be conducted. Petitioner was notified that incase the possession of the property is not handed over peacefully, it would be taking possession of the property with the assistance of law enforcement officials and as per the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore in case No.5245/2011.
3. In WP No.12985/2013 decided on 11.07.2013, involving similar issue, finding that the petitioner can avail remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and that in the first instance, an interim order having been
4 granted, by making it clear that benefit of the said order shall enure to the petitioner till the DRT is approached for relief, the writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Until then, the Authorized Officer of the bank was restrained from interfering with the physical possession of the property of the writ petitioner.
4. The petitioner herein has the benefit of the interim order dated 10.05.2012. By the said order, the first respondent was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the premises for a period of two months. The said interim order was extended on 17.08.2012.
5. The facts in this case being identical, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 11.07.2013 passed in WP No.12985/2013, granting four weeks time to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for relief, as against the impugned auction. Till the DRT is approached for relief ie., within
5 the said period, it is made clear that the respondent shall not interfere with the physical possession and enjoyment of the subject premises by the petitioner.
Contentions of both the parties are kept open for consideration and decision by DRT. Petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
LEONORA RIVERA-AVANTE, PETITIONER, v. MILAGROS RIVERA AND THEIR HEIRS WITH THE LATE ALEJANDRO RIVERA, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS WHO ARE DERIVING CLAIM OR RIGHTS FROM THEM, RESPONDENTS.