GAYATHRI K.R. Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 22-10-2013 vide Annexure-A passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. Misc. No. 5891 of 2013. As per the said order, at the instance of the 1st respondent-Bank, learned Magistrate has allowed the petition filed by the Bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'Securitisation Act') and has held that the respondent-Bank is entitled to take possession of the schedule property with police help.

(2.) Petitioners 1 to 4 and respondent 3 are the children of the 2nd respondent. They claim to be the joint owners of property in question. The 3rd respondent has availed loan from the 1st respondent-Canara Bank. The 2nd respondent has stood as guarantor by mortgaging the schedule property. As the loan amount has not been re-paid, Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation Act. The property was brought for sale.

(3.) Action of the Bank was challenged by the 3rd petitioner claiming as one of the co-owners of the property in S.A. No. 286 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore. In the said application, interim order of stay was granted, subject to the condition that petitioner 3 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs within one month. The said sum has not been deposited by the 3rd petitioner and therefore, the interim order of stay is not in operation. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has passed the order under challenge vide Annexure-A permitting the Bank to lake over possession of the premises with police help. Aggrieved by this order, present writ petition is filed.