S. AMUDHA Vs. IDBI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is posted for orders, by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this order.

(2.) IN this case, petitioner has called in question the validity of the order at Annexure -C dated 15 -06 -2013 whereby the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore has directed the first respondent - Bank to take possession of the property.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the first respondent - Bank has sought to justify the impugned order. It is his contention that notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has been issued for taking possession of the property. This notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in Case No. IR 1405/2012. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has held that petitioner is not a bonafide tenant. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on 25 -04 -2012. This order has attained finality. In furtherance of the said order, the Bank has sought to recover possession of the property by Police help under Section 14 of the Act, which has been allowed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.