M/S MOTORS v. STATE BANK OF INDIA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as not
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The petitioners have remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In view of the alternative remedy and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others [2010 (8) SCC…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 27319 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
#1. M/S S S R MOTORS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT SAIRAM COMPLEX, B.R. HILLS ROAD, RAMASAMUDRA TOWN CHAMARAJANGAR PIN CODE – 571 313 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI BHASKAR R.S. PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932.
#2. SRI BHASKAR R.S. MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka W/O SHIVASHANKARA ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT: #425, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, RAMASAMUDRA CHAMARAJANGARA - 571 313. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJANEESH C.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
#1. STATE BANK OF INDIA STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH (05173) BUILDING No. 11/90, III FLOOR NEAR OLD SHIVAJI THEATRE J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002 - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35193 WP No. 27319 of 2023 PH. NO. 080-25943678, 25943663 EMAIL [email protected] REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT ALL ACTION TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 13(4) OF THE ACT AS AB-INITIO VOID AND ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DTD 16.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXUREX- ‘A’ AND ALL FURTHER ACTIONS TAKEN IN PURSUANT THERETO & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard, Sri Rajaneesh C.M., learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri Nandish Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent.
#2. The petitioners have called in question the sale notice dated 16.10.2023 issued under Section13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35193 WP No. 27319 of 2023 Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act").
#3. Learned counsel respondent-Bank submits that the petitioners have a remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. He submits that pursuant to the sale notice dated 16.10.2023, the property in question has been sold and sale is confirmed. He further submits that in view of the changed circumstances, the petition would not survive for consideration.
#4. Considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
#5. The petitioners have remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In view of the alternative remedy and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others [2010 (8) SCC 110], the writ petition is not maintainable. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35193 WP No. 27319 of 2023 Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as not
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.