IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
DATED THIS THE am DAY or NOVEMB.ER,; 1:of
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE i . bf
WRIT PETITION Nos.38928--38929/2OO9"V'{(}M;KS;FC} f .
BETWEEN: .
G.M. Nithish kumar Chittib-abut"-»
S/0 Markandaiah, ' z - 5 V .'
Aged about 42 years ' ' .
R/ at No.40/A, Ananth NiV.as,_ V I, ~-
Gangusha Layout, ' " '
Nagar, Kalkere .
Bangalore ...PETITIONER
(By. s;fi.. V.s:.3s1d ,' Adv.)
1. The Karnataka"Stat'e--..Fir1anoia1 Corporation,
M.G.Roa,d bran__.ch,. ii'
2114' Floor, Church Street.
._'E«anga1ore--5600@«1'
Represerited by its
' Tflepuytyflerreral Manager.
':2 AEM/s. Kt-."R.V.'Fashjons
-#2 1959/2.1=1st Floor, Sy. No: 57/3,
Hongasandra Garvebhavi Palya,
_Hosu--r Main Road, Banga1ore--560068,
~ Represented by its Manager partner.
"Stilt. R. Kanmanj,
W/o Sri K. Ramachandran,
' Aged about 38 years,
R/ at No.62/A, BEML township.
New Thippaswandra,
Banga1ore-- 560075. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Rajesh Shetty, Adv. for R-- 1
Sri.M.Chamraj, Adv. for R-2)
"'"\
These Writ Petitions are filed under
and 227 of the Constitution of India
the possession notice dated 01/06/2009 .by»lIs'*st.
respondent, the Karnataka Sta.'te"Finanl-cial Corporation,
M.G.Road Branch Bangalore--5'6O7l_OO'lll,, llre_present:ed.:':lbyVV
its Deputy General Manager,' vide..A11ne§:u'rej--'I'.. its?'
consequential operation and'l"e.tc. _
These Writ hearing in 'B'
group this day,_the Co1.1.rt'ma--de,_th2e'
The' fhelrein lithe guarantor for the
creditvlfacility 21°C' respondent from the 13*
respondent?Corporation'... In respect of said loan
«~..,transaé_:tioiis, thewpetitioner herein has offered his
lvcollateral security to secure the said loan.
seen that due to failure in repayment of
l:j..loan...gbyV"the 2110' respondent and the petitioner herein,
the' M18' respondent--Corporation has issued a notice
" "under Sec. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act for taking possession
and sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner
herein. The said notice at Annexure--E is impugned by
'""\
the petitioner in this proceedings on the groundflthat he
is only a guarantor for the loan :.:2.ner
respondent, non--consideration of th
proposal for one time settlement C
Corporation is opposed _"lavv:h'and.
cannot be sold under of "Act for
realisation of the loaridue respondent. The
181 respondent wouldthat'CAtIiVe--V"'correctness or
otherwise oi rtotice of SARFAESI Act
can be Din" under Sec.13(2)
it 2 -- there is alternative remedy
available... it is not open for him to
approach plunder Art. 226 of the Constitution.
that the said legal position is covered
of the Apex Court in'the matter of
or' mom vs. SATYAWATI TONDON AND
C' reported in 201 0 8 sec 110.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and
it respondents. Pcrused the Judgment cited supra by the
191 respondent--Corporation. In the light of the said
decision, it is seen that, since there is alternative
"N
-
remedy available to the petitioner to chalienge thenotice
issued under See.13[2) of SARFAESI Act’. it _is_
for him to challenge the same in writ ‘
View of the ratio laid down by’; -I
aforesaid Judgment, this Court of-the that
writ petitions does not for leonsideration and
same is required to be”d=isniissed,~reserving liberty to the
petitioner to approachV_Vi)R1ll’__l:fi:r jfresh application
within 15 ‘reeeiipt ‘of copy of this
order. If the same the said
delay2_jp§hai.ll considering the fact that the
petitionerjlwas matter by filing this writ
petition, ‘Ilh’ereai”ter: the Tribunal shall dispose of the
merits after hearing the parties. it is
flir-their that even when the matter is pending
before it is open for the petitioner herein to pursue
“:ie_steps initiated by him for settlement of the dispute
is’ respondent and the 1st responcient–Corporation
it directed to consider his application for settlement in
accordance with Rules of the Corporation governing the
procedure for settlement. ‘Wt
With these observations, the writ petiti0n”s–.Tare
disposed of.
Lr.