N.E. BASAVARAJAPPA Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by the consent of learned Advocates it is taken up for final disposal, since the only issue involved in this petition relates to whether the petitioners should be permitted to prosecute their claim before this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction or petitioners should be relegated to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to espouse their cause in terms of Sec. 17 (4-A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Petitioners 1 to 3 and petitioner 4 are claiming to be in possession of portions of shops at STK Plaza situated at Property No. 1/1, Hospital Road, Avenue Road Cross, Bengaluru, having been inducted by respondent 2 in the years 1989 and 2012 respectively. Hence, they are seeking for a direction to the respondent-Bank not to evict the petitioners without following due process of law.

(3.) Respondent 1 being notified, have appeared and filed their statement of objections and denied the averments made in the petition except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder. It is the specific case of 1st respondent-Bank that property in question, namely, shops in STK Plaza in which petitioners 1 to 4 are in occupation apart from others have been mortgaged by the title-holder - debtor to secure the debt borrowed by him by creating an equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds of the said property and as such, 1st respondent being a secured creditor is exercising the powers under the Act has initiated proceedings under Sec. 14 of the Act before the Jurisdictional Magistrate by filing C. Mis. No. 7984/2013 and pursuant to the order passed on 5-10-2013 allowing the petition, which was preceded by notices being issued under Sec. 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act to the debtor, possession has been taken over and the remedy available to petitioners is only to approach the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal under Sec. 17(4-A) of the Act and petitioners cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.