M/S Hongkong And Shanghai vs Muniraju Vijay on 4 March, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT 01+' KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY or MARCH, 29:-if  2 V.

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE :v;'GoPA17,A  v   

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.'JHST1cE'B..s.' BATID-;VV"'  

WRIT APPEAL DNo.237.19i:g01Q (GM-DDT)':

BETWEEN:

' M / sfiongkong andVShang'f1'ai' ' 

Banking      
M.G.R0ad, Ba.nga1Q1*e.--j;'. 560   7 A

Rep. by its Asst. Legal Manager '  

Sri   " A ' "  APPELLANT
(By Sri M;jV.S.$aet"Ey}v- -sastry & C0.)

AND: A P V P 

Sri Muliiifaju Vijay;  N

 Miiniraju,  """ 
7_N0.'l2, P/[ilk Colony,

'Maflesiiwararri est.
BaI}gEi3_Qre;v    RESPONDENT

Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka

;C0u1*t=Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ
_ i?’€fiti0i1i&N0. 13624/2009 dated 30.11.2009

This Appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,

N ‘B.S..PatiI. J.. delivered the following»

)unA3A44

such a course is not at all required to be
adopted, inasmuch as, once a notice is issued
before taking possession, the observation made

by the Tribunal that only if there
obstruction recourse could be had to Sectiszirip» ”
of the Act, is incorrect. It is to be n
the borrower is required tomybe put””o’11.:’_notice’
before possession is being taken..yvfhich’:couldabel A ivy f
done under Section l:3_{4.-) of lthelSA_ct. it
not be any obstruction,:Vpl5y theV’borroyve:r”before:
possession is taken under’-Section .14» thef%Act.
Indeed, the Division Coiirt has
also ruled that theirrpossession

is also not VentitiedV”tt>:befcrelinitiation of

1’Vproceedingsyfuiider:Sectilon”l4 of the Act.

2. Thelearned’ ‘&3idge’ has observed in the operative

portion of theluorder.thatlonly that part of the order passed by

dhthe whichflinsists that there must be an obstruction

Section 14 of the Act was liable to be set aside

andl’accordi}figlly*i:the said order was set aside and rest of the

. reorder passed by the Tribunal hoiciing that the respondent bank

to have proceeded first under Section 13(4) of the Act and

.___'”later under Section 14 of the Act has been confirmed. In the

“result, the appellant — bank is now at liberty to proceed under

Section 13(4) of the Act by issuing necessary notice.

which is now at liberty to issue notice and take over possession

in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(4)&_or’

by adhering to the provisions of Section 14 of the’;?&_’et,v

find any need to interfere with th~e'””o1der ‘.c_h:aI’Ien§e.

Hence, the appeal is dis’in_is}=.’ed.

imsovwzos/zoiotnajsedgnggsgyxfitheinagfpasgfirbythe”

Debts Recovery Tribunal is also
3d/w

i 9i r n§ issss

S5!”

PKS

an <