Smt. Godha Krishna Prasad H v Vs the Bangalore City Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

SMT. GODHA KRISHNA PRASAD H.V. AGED 61 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S. KRISHNA P.G. NO.116/2-1, HOUSE NO.116 AND 116/5 11^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI S.V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3, PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD CHAMRAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46638-DB WA No. 483 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.34978/2024 (GM-RES) DATED 20/02/2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY GRANTING RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION, ALONG WITH EXEMPLARY COST.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

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

¶24

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.34978/2024 (GM-RES).

¶25

The appellant had filed the said writ petition challenging the sale notice dated 07.11.2024 issued by the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46638-DB WA No. 483 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [ SARFAESI Act ]. A notice dated 01.06.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, was issued to the petitioner . Thereafter, the respondent - bank issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and took possession of the property which was furnished as a collateral security under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 [ Rules ], as the petitioner failed to pay the amounts as demanded.

¶29

The petitioner had thereafter filed writ petition being W.P.No.18371/2023, which was disposed of with directions to the petitioner to regularise the account by paying the entire balance due within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The court had also directed that if the petitioner did not regularise the account, it was open for the respondent to continue the proceedings in accordance with law.

¶30

The Bank had also approached the Court of the Additional CJM, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.3061/2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 05.10.2024.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:46638-DB WA No. 483 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

In view of the steps taken by the Bank, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition being WP.No.27881/2024 and this Court by an order dated 16.10.2024, passed an interim order, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.One Crore within a period of ten days from the date of the said order. The petitioner did not comply with the said condition as well. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent - bank proceeded to take further steps under the SARFAESI Act.

¶35

The petitioner preferred yet another writ petition being W.P.No.34978/2024, which was dismissed on 20.02.2024 by the learned Single Judge with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Apparently, the cost has been imposed as certain submissions were found to be erroneous.

¶36

The petitioner has a statutory remedy against the steps taken under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, in our view, it is not necessary for this Court to entertain the writ appeal. As noted above, the petitioner has filed two petitions, including the one in which the impugned order was passed.

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:46638-DB WA No. 483 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

We find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. We, however, clarify that in the event the petitioner seeks to avail any of the statutory remedies, the order passed by this Court would not preclude the petitioner from doing so.

¶41

Pending applications stand disposed of.

¶42

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶44

SD,

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt. Godha Krishna Prasad H v. Vs the Bangalore City Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Godha Krishna Prasad H v. Vs the Bangalore City Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Apple Stone Crushers, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Vijay B Ramnani Vs Quazi Razal Ahmad

Sri Gurunath Vadde Vs the State of Karnataka

Ann Varghese Vs K. v. Prasad

Commissioner Vs C a Suresha