RAMYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri S. Nagaraju, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the notice at Annexure-C, dated 5-3-2010 whereby the Authorised Officer of State Bank of India, the first respondent herein has called upon one P. Gopalakrishna to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the property in question to enable him to handover the same to the successful tenderer in the auction proposed to be conducted by the Bank. In the notice, P. Gopalakrishna was informed that a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act') was issued to Smt. Vasantha Venkatachalam, the guarantor to the loan transaction. Since the payment was not made, constructive possession of the property was taken on 13-1-2009.

(2.) Petitioner is the daughter of Smt. Vasantha Venkatachalam. It is her case that the guarantee offered by her mother was for Rs. 2.00 lakhs. It is contended that she has filed a suit in O.S. No. 26632 of 2011 on the file of the Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore, for partition and separate possession of her share in the property in question and that the said suit is still pending. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in S.A. No. 226 of 2010 challenging the order passed by the first respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and that the matter is still pending before the DRT. Since the petitioner has already availed alternative remedy available to her in law, which in my opinion is adequate and efficacious in nature, I decline to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner cannot pursue parallel the remedies available to her in law at the same time. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. All contentions on merit are kept open. No costs.