High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 11 KAR CK 0045

Mr. Abdul Rahim B.E. vs I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 4 November 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.S. Patil, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 39443 of 2011 (GM-RES)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 332 words

B.S. Patil

1.

Possession Notice dated 24.09.2011 published in the newspaper on 3009.2011 is called in question in this writ petition. A direction is also sought against the respondent-Bank to follow the mandatory provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ''the Act'') for the purpose of realizing the loan amount.

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, holding that the sale notice dated 28.04.2010 and the possession notice dated 23.04.2010 issued by the respondent-Bank were not in conformity with the procedure contemplated under the Act and therefore unsustainable, the bank has proceeded to issue another possession notice dated 24.09.2011 vide Annexure-H without following due process of law. It is the case of the petitioner that he is still in possession of the premises and that there is imminent threat of dispossession as the bank has initiated measures contemplated u/s 13(4) of the Act.

3.

Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy u/s 17 of the Act and therefore, he has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, if he is aggrieved.

4.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, I find that as there is an alternative efficacious remedy provided u/s 17 of the Act, the petitioner has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

5.

However, as the petitioner is facing imminent threat of dispossession and the Tribunal is not regularly sitting, in order to mitigate the hardship and to ensure that the alternative remedy provided is not rendered infructuous for the petitioner, I find it just and appropriate to grant three weeks time to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy and until then both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the property.

6.

Writ petition stands disposed of in terms stated above.