Dismissed¶48

Sri. Chalapathi. T. v. the Mahila Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2025WA/412/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: SARFAESI Act Section 17; Section 14; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act 2002; Debts Recovery Tribunal; tenants; alternative remedy; interim stay rejected; writ appeal dismissed; Karnataka High Court Act Section 4; W.P.No.8763/2022 (GM-RES); Sri.Abdul Khader v. Sadath Ali Siddiqui ILR 2022 KAR 13; Vishal N.Kalsaria v. Bank of India AIR 2016 SCC 530; dispossession protection one month; refund of deposit Rs.1,00,000; Mahila Co-operative Bank Ltd.; Mathikere Bangalore.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each by appellant Nos.1 to 6 to be returned by the Registry as per rules; appellants No.1 to 7 not to be dispossessed for one month from the judgment date. ¶48

Sri. Chalapathi. T. Vs the Mahila Co. Operative Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal challenging the learned Single Judge's interim order dated 22.04.2022 in W.P.No.8763/2022 (GM-RES) can succeed, given that the tenant-writ appellants have an alternative remedy of staking their claim before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶36

Court's answer

It is for the tenants to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act (the rule of Abdul Khader, ILR 2022 KAR 13, adopted by this Court); consequently, in view of the availability of this alternative remedy, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Having relied on Sri.Abdul Khader (which itself was based after considering Vishal N.Kalsaria, AIR 2016 SCC 530), the learned Judge correctly rejected the application for interim stay.

¶45

Key takeaways

Consequential directions: the deposits of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each by appellant Nos.1 to 6 are to be returned by the Registry as per rules, and appellants No.1 to 7 shall not be dispossessed for a period of one month from the date of judgment.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Writ Appeal No. 412 of 2022 (GM-RES), Division Bench (Jayant Banerji & Umesh M Adiga JJ.), oral judgment per Jayant Banerji J., 14.08.2025: Seven writ appellants claiming to be tenants of disputed property appealed (filed u/s 4, Karnataka High Court Act) to set aside the interim order dated 22.04.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8763/2022 (GM-RES), wherein the prayer for interim stay was rejected relying on Sri.Abdul Khader v. Sadath Ali Siddiqui, ILR 2022 KAR 13. Counsel were ad idem that the tenant-appellants can stake their claim before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; the Division Bench, having perused Abdul Khader (which considered Vishal N.Kalsaria v. Bank of India, AIR 2016 SCC 530), endorsed its rule that tenants are to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 SARFAESI to challenge orders passed under Section 14 SARFAESI, held the Single Judge correctly rejected the interim-stay application, and dismissed the appeal in view of the alternative remedy. Deposits of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) each by appellant Nos.1-6 ordered refunded by the Registry as per rules; appellants No.1-7 protected against dispossession for one month from judgment.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31558-DB WA No. 412 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. CHALAPATHI.T, S/O LATE THIMMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRY-CLEANER,

¶10

KUM.ANNIE VAZ, D/O LATE RICHARD VAZ, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. PUBLIC SERVANT,

¶11

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI.GURUMURTHY, S/O LATE RUDHRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. PUBLIC SERVANT,

¶13

SRI.MAHADEVA, S/O LATE SUBBE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION CABLE TV EMPLOYEE,

¶14

SMT.RADHAMMA @ SMT.RADHA, W/O LATE ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE MAID,

¶15

SRI.MADHU.K.M, S/O LATE MARI GOWDA,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31558-DB WA No. 412 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER,

¶19

SMT.POLLAMMA, W/O LATE BUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SWEEPER

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDIG AT: #24, SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 1^ST ‘B’ CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054.

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SMT.HEGDE SUMANA MAHADEV., ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE MAHILA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REP.BY ITS ASST.ACCOUNTANT OFFICER, SRI.KRISHNA V GARADIMANI, NO.13 AND 14, SOUTH END ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020.

¶25

LATE SRI.NARAYANA RAO, REP. BY LRS 2(A). SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.N, MAJOR, S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO, 2(B).SRI HARISH.N, MAJOR, S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO,

¶26

RESPONDENT NO.2(A) AND 2(B) R/A #24, SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 1^ST ‘B’ CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560 054.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.RAMA BHAT K., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31558-DB WA No. 412 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.8763/2022(GM-RES) DATED 22.04.2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FORM ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶36

The learned counsel for the parties are not at issue that the writ appellants who claim to be the tenants of the property in dispute can stake their claim before the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act').

¶37

A perusal of the order of the learned Judge that is sought to be challenged in the instant writ appeal reflects that a judgment in the case of Sri.Abdul Khader

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:31558-DB WA No. 412 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Vs. Sadath Ali Siddiqui and Another reported in ILR

¶42

2022 KAR 13 has been relied upon to dismiss the petition on the ground to reject the prayer for interim stay.

¶43

We have perused the aforesaid judgment Abdul

¶44

Khader (stated supra) and we find that the same is based after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishal N.Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India

¶45

and Others reported in AIR 2016 SCC 530 and the learned Judge, has, therefore, correctly rejected the application for interim stay.

¶46

4. In the aforesaid judgment of Abdul Khader , it

¶47

has been held that it is for the tenants to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶48

Under the circumstances, in view of the availability of the alternative remedy, the appeal is dismissed .

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31558-DB WA No. 412 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Since we have dismissed the appeal, the

¶52

deposit of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each, by the appellant Nos.1 to 6 may be returned to them by the Registry, as per rules.

¶53

Since, a conditional interim order was already granted by this Court and in view of the submission being advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, we provide that the appellants No.1 to 7 shall not be dispossessed for a period of one month from today from the property in dispute.

¶54

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶55

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri. Chalapathi. T. v. the Mahila Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chalapathi. T. v. the Mahila Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt M Ashwini Vs Sri S Ananthkumar

M/S. Benaka Brick Works Vs Bank of Baroda

Mr. Methuku Srinivas Vs Total Solutions Intec Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Srinivas Manne Parayya Vs Mr. Sreenivas Babu T G

Karnataka Telecom Deparatment Employees Co. Operative Society Vs Smt Rachitha Chetan

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri. v. R. Nagaraju