M.P. MALLESH S/O PUTTAMADAPPA Vs. SRI KARUNAKARA SHETTY S/O T.A. SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainants are borrowers who had availed loan of Rs. 34,20,000/ - from the Bangalore Branch of M/s. Vijaya Bank - a Nationalized Bank as per loan transaction dated 5.11.2003.

(2.) THE complainants being defaulters in repayment, it appears the Bank had initiated action for recovery under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the Act'). The Bank had caused issue of a demand notice under section 13[2] of the Act on 12.12.2008 and due to default, followed it up for action under section 13[4] of the Act, particularly, for recovery of possession as per notice dated 11.7.2009. This proceeding under sections 13[2] and 13[4] of the Act was subject matter of appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in SA No. 448/2009, particularly, for questioning the possession notice dated 11.7.2009.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, the complainants have presented this petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with sections 10 and 15[1][b] of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 complaining that, the follow up action by the Bank notwithstanding the notice issued under section 13[4] of the Act dated 11.7.2009 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal as per its order dated 26.4,2010 is nothing short of a preemptive action on the part of the accused person; that it is not a bona fide action, but virtually a mala fide action to spike the complainants though they had succeeded in SA No. 448/2009 and the notices under sections 13[2] and 13[4] of the Act which is based for making an application under section 14 of the Act to the Magistrate had been set aside by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.