Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 70390 (KAR)

M/S NORTH EAST REGION FINSERVICE LTD v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER

WP/24081/2025 · 2025-08-28

B M Shyam Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33398 WP No. 24081 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 24081 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S NORTH EAST REGION FINSERVICE LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT M2 BLOCK, JIM PLAZA, LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE, VIKAS PURI, OPPOSITE KERALA SCHOOL, NEW DELHI 110018 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR KEISHING JAMES LALRONGBAWL. 2. MR KEISHING JAMES LALRONGBAWL S/O LATE K LUISE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, FLAT NO G1 GROUND FLOOR, "SALAPURIA LAVANY RESIDENCY" APARTMENT, PALM GROVE ROAD, WARD NO 76, VICOTRIA ROAD LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560047. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SARAVANAN. G.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33398 WP No. 24081 of 2025 AND: 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTED GY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH BENGALURU, BRANCH CODE PUNB0679300, NO 26-27, 1ST FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M G ROAD, BENGALURU 560001 ALSO AT BRANCH OFFICE FANCY BAZAR, LIC BUILDING, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI 78101. 2. M/S HILLS PARADISE INTERNATIONAL HOTEL LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR ABEL DARKHOPUL HMAR, 4-C STAR ENCLAVE GNB ROAD, PNA BAZAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781001. 3. MRS LAL REMSIEM W/O MR KEISHING JAMES LALRONGBAWL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, C-14 REAR, GROUND FLOOR, NEW KRISHNA PARK, VIKASPURI, NEW DELHI 110018. 4. MR K ASHANG VIVAN R/AT PUJA PARTMENT, FLAT NO 3C, NABARAHA ROAD, CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781001. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33398 WP No. 24081 of 2025 5. MR RAM LAL KESHRI S/O LATE KANHAIYA LAL KESHRI, C-14 REAR GROUND FLOOR, NEW KRISHNA PARK VIKASPURI, NEW DELHI 110018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGNESH S. SHETTY., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-A. QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.03.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO. 50473/2024 BY THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, AS PER ANNEXURE-C, IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 (ACT 54 OF 2002), AS BEING EXCESSIVE, ILLEGAL, AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33398 WP No. 24081 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2025 [Annexure-C] under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'] in Crl.Misc.No.50481/2024. Sri Saravanan G., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued the following for this Court's intervention, and this Court has directed the respondent not to take precipitative action until today. The submissions are: [i] the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which is dated 10.03.2025 and there is likelihood of the petitioners being dispossessed immediately, [ii] the petitioners, because the value of the subject matter is more than Rs.100 Crores, will have to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal - 1, Chennai, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33398 WP No. 24081 of 2025 [iii] the petitioners would require reasonable time and there must be just protection. Sri Saravanan G., the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Vignesh S. Shetty, the learned counsel for the first respondent, are heard and the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedy under the SARFAESI Act calling upon the first respondent to defer any precipitative action for a period of four [4] weeks from today. It is needless to observe that if the second petitioner indeed avails their remedy in terms of his liberty, the DRAT shall consider extending further orders uninfluenced by the arrangement that is provided in these proceedings. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr