SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DEEPA UMASHANKAR – Appellant
Versus
DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD – Respondent
WP 34983/2018



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.34983/2018 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

DEEPA UMASHANKAR

W/O UMA SHANKAR,

AGE 39 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.62/7,

GROUDN FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

KEB ROAD, ITTAMADU,

NEAR TERRANCE GARDEN APARTMENT,

BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,

KATRIGUPPE, BANGALORE-560085.

...PETITIONER

(SRI.N.SURESH, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

AND:

1.

DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD

NO.82, 1ST FLOOR, ABOVE IDBI BANK,

DR RAJKUMAR ROAD,

2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU-560010.

REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER.

2.

KIRAN YADAV S

S/O K SUBARAMANYAM,

AGED 39 YEARS,

NO.62/7, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

KEB ROAD, ITTAMADU

NEAR TERRANCE GARDEN APARTMENT,

BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE KATRIGUPPE,

BANGALORE-560085.

2

3.

KRISHNAMANDI SUBRAMANYAM

S/O KRISHNAMANDI,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

RESIDING AT, NO.62/7,

1ST MAIN ROAD, KEB ROAD, ITTAMADU,

NEAR TEERRANCE GARDEN APARTMENT,

BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, KATRIGUPPE,

BANGALORE-560085.

&RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THE

CONSTITUTION

OF

INDIA,

PRAYING

TO

DIRECT

RESPONDENT NO.1 NOT TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF

THE WRIT PETITION SCHEDULED PROPERTIES.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

No representation for the petitioner.

2.

Petitioner has challenged the possession notice

dated

27.01.2018

(Annexure-C)

issued

under

the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ("SARFAESI Act"

for short).

3.

It is settled that any person aggrieved by the

proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act has an

alternative and efficacious remedy before the Debt Recovery

3

Tribunal ("DRT" for short). (See United Bank of India

Vs. Satyawati Tandon and others1).

4.

In the circumstances, this petition does not merit

consideration and it is accordingly dismissed reserving

liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief under

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VM

1 2010 (8) SCC 110

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top