Dismissed¶6

Smt. Beena Prasad v. Corporation Bank

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2025WA/297/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 297 of 2025 (GM-RES); NC: 2025:KHC:52897-DB; High Court of Karnataka; decided 12.12.2025; Coram: Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice and C.M. Poonacha, J.; writ appeal dismissed; writ petition rejected; direction to Corporation Bank to accept representation dated 26.07.2021 and liquidate mortgaged secured asset; disputed questions of fact; inability to compel bank enforcement of security; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; Corporation Bank merged with Union Bank of India; Federal Bank Limited; loan account closure; pending interlocutory application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The Division Bench found no infirmity in the learned Single Judge's reasoning declining to examine the controversy relating to the secured asset, since it involved disputed questions of fact. ¶5

Smt. Beena Prasad Vs Corporation Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52897-DB WA No. 297 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. BEENA PRASAD W/O. S.N. PADMAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.2 PARK VIEW, III MAIN JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU - 570 012

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY MS. NIVEDITHA C. SHIVANAIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

CORPORATION BANK MYSURU VONTIKOPPALU BRANCH NO.13/1 AND 13/2 TEMPLE ROAD, V V MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 002 (NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA) REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER

¶16

THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED HAND POST BRANCH YEREHALLI (HAND POST) H D TALUK, MYSURU - 571 114

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52897-DB WA No. 297 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECITON 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23/01/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO. 15821/2021 AND THEREBY GRANT THE RELIEFS AS SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.15821/2021 & ETC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15821/2021 (GM-RES), whereby the said petition was rejected.

¶26

The appellant had filed the said petition, inter alia, praying that direction be issued to respondent No.1 [ Corporation Bank ] to accept the appellant's representation dated 26.07.2021 and liquidate one of the secured assets mortgaged with the Corporation Bank. The appellant seeks that the loan account of the appellant be closed from the proceeds of the said secured assets described as property bearing No.14, New Khata No.337/1 situated at Hand

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52897-DB WA No. 297 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Post Yerahalli, R P Circle, Kasaba Hobli, H D Kote Taluk, Mysuru District along with the building measuring East to West 155 feet and North to South 52.37 feet.

¶30

Whereas, the respondent – Bank states that there is litigation regarding the said secured asset. The appellant states that a major portion of the said secured asset falls outside the area in regard to which disputes subsist and dispute exists only in a minor portion of the secured asset.

¶31

The learned Single Judge had declined to examine the said controversy, as the same would involve disputed questions of fact.

¶32

We find no infirmity with the said reasoning. We are also unable to accept that the appellant can insist that the respondent Bank take immediate action for enforcing of its secured interest in respect of the specified secured asset. Clearly, it is not apposite to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the relief as sought.

¶33