Disposed¶77

Sri. Hatelsab v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025WP/112262/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SBI lease termination; one time settlement (OTS) of loan account; tender process Prajawani 25.05.2019; seriously disputed questions of fact; Article 226 writ jurisdiction limits; alternative efficacious remedy civil suit; writ disposed with liberty to approach appropriate forum; MSME loan Hubballi; LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd. AIR 1986 SC 1370 relied upon; Ramana Dayaram Shetty AIR 1979 SC 1628 referred; State instrumentality Article 12; State Bank of India Act 1955; Transfer of Property Act lease clause 5(h); party-in-person petitioner; Justice M. Nagaprasanna; Karnataka HC Dharwad Bench 2025.

What did the court decide?

None of the three prayers granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate forum. ¶77

Sri. Hatelsab Vs State Bank of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None of the three prayers granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate forum.

¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondents 1 to 6 should be directed to complete the tender process issued in the Kannada daily Prajawani dated 25.05.2019 (Annexure-P-11). +4 more

¶38

Ratio / Principle

As observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the rival contentions raise seriously disputed questions of fact which cannot be thrashed out in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶77

Key takeaways

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate forum, the writ petition stands disposed of.ratio¶77

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) No. 112262 of 2020, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench — oral order dated 24.11.2025 by Justice M. Nagaprasanna. Hatelsab s/o Dastagirsab Kolhar (party in person) sought mandamus against State Bank of India (R1–R6) and Union of India (R7) to (i) complete the tender process published in the Kannada daily Prajawani dated 25.05.2019, (ii) settle his loan account under one time settlement as per his representation dated 23.10.2018, and (iii) permit him to sell the property and make good the loan payment. His earlier W.P. No.101062/2018, challenging the Bank's letter dated 11.01.2018 terminating the registered leases, had been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench, which treated the lease termination as a matter of contract under the Transfer of Property Act triable only in a civil suit, relied on LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd. (AIR 1986 SC 1370), and termed misconceived the submission founded on Ramana Dayaram Shetty (AIR 1979 SC 1628) that every action of a State instrumentality carries a public law element. In the present petition the petitioner contended the Bank never vacated the leased premises, while the Bank's counsel submitted it vacated in 2018 and the petitioner thereafter sold the premises. Holding these to be seriously disputed questions of fact incapable of being thrashed out under Article 226, the Court disposed of the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 112262 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. HATELSAB S/O. DASTAGIRSAB KOLHAR AGED: 68 YEARS, OCC: RETD. GOVT. SERVANT, R/O. KOLHAR PLAZA, KRISHNAGIRI COLONY, ANAND NAGAR MAIN ROAD, HUBBALLI-580024, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶7

…PETITIONER (SRI. HATELSAB S/O. DASTAGIRSAB KOLHAR-PARTY IN PERSON)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶10

STATE BANK OF INDIA BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, SBI ZONAL OFFICE, T. S. COMPLEX, SOLAPUR ROAD, HUBBALLI-580023, DISTRICT: DHARWAD

¶11

STATE BANK OF INDIA BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERRPISES CITY CREDIT CENTRE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, T. S. COMPLEX, SHOLAPUR ROAD,

¶12

¶13

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023, DISTRICT: DHARWAD

¶16

STATE BANK OF INDIA ANAND NAGAR BRANCH, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER NO.81/B, KRISHNAGIRI COLONY, 80 FEET ROAD, ANAND NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580024, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶17

STATE BANK OF INDIA SIDDARUDH NAGAR BRANCH, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NEAR SIDDARUDH MATH, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶18

STATE BANK OF INDIA BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, (PRINCIPAL NODAL OFFICER) STATE BANK BHAVAN, 11^TH FLOOR, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021.

¶19

STATE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE KARNATAKA BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SAINT MARKS ROAD, SHANTHALA NAGAR, SAMPANGI RAMA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

UNION OF INDIA REP. BY JOINT SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

3^RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. M.B. KANAVI, CGSC FOR R7)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶27

ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO1 TO 6, TO COMPLETE THE TENDER PROCESS ISSUED IN KANNADA DAILY PRAJAWANI DATED 25.05.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE- P-11.

¶28

ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 RESPONDENT BANK TO SETTLE THE LOAN ACCOUNT UNDER ONE TIME SETTLEMENT AS PER REPRESENTATION DATED 23102018 AT ANNEXURE-P.

¶29

ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6, TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO SELL PROPERTY AND MAKE GOOD THE LOAN PAYMENT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶36

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶37

following prayer:

¶38

a. “Issue any appropriate order or any appropriate direction or writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No1 to 6, to complete the tender process issued in kannada daily prajawani dated 25.05.2019 vide ANNEXURE- P-11

¶39

b. Issue any appropriate order or any appropriate direction or writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to 6 Respondent Bank to settle the loan account under one time settlement as per representation dated 23102018 at ANNEXURE-P.

¶40

c. Issue any appropriate order or any appropriate direction or writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to 6, to allow petitioner to sell property and make good the loan payment to meet the ends of justice.”

¶41

The petitioner is the owner of a property in which the State Bank of India had put up its branch as a lessee. The petitioner was earlier before this Court in Writ Petition No.101062/2018. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on the very same submissions that are now projected in the present petition, had answered the matter by the following order:

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

“In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has laid a challenge to the letter bearing No.Misc/33/2017-18 dated 11.01 .2018, at Annexure ‘Q’ to the Writ Petition whereby the 3r d respondent/Bank has in effect terminated a contract of lease incorporated in the registered instruments dated 03/04.12 .2013 and 10.07.2014.

¶46

Brief facts stated are that:

¶47

(i) Respondent No.3 Bank is an instrumentality of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution o f India, having been established under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955; it had entered into leases duly executed and registered on 04.12 .2013 and 10.07 .2014 for a stipulated tenure of ten years. The respondent/Bank vide its impugned letter dated 11.01.2018 at Annexure ‘Q’ has terminated the said arrangement unilaterally; this action o f the respondent/Bank is un just, arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner has invested hug e sums of money borrowed from the very same Bank under the MSME Scheme as an industry.

¶48

(ii) After notice, the 3r d respondent entered appearance and filed its detailed objections dated 06.04.2018, resisted the writ petition on various grounds. It has also denied the petition averments except the lease in question. It also contends that the lease is a matter o f contract governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and that the termination o f the lease again is a matter of contract only; there is no scope for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

I have care fully considered the rival contentions at the Bar. The registered lease dated 03.12.2013 is purely a matter of contract between the parties. Paragraph 5(h) o f the said lease reads:

¶52

“5(h) That the Lessee shall have further option of terminating the lease hereby granted at any time during the tenancy thereo f on giving the Lessor three calendar month’s previous notice in writing.”

¶53

Thus, in exercise of right reserved to the lessee, this Lease has been terminated with three months notice as stipulated in the said paragraph. If it is an illegal termination, the grievance o f the petitioner has to be worked out in a regularly constituted civil suit and not a writ petition.

¶54

1. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3r d respondent/Bank is established under a Parliamentary enactment and there fore, it answers description of “ State ” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as meant by the Apex Court in the case o f RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY

¶55

Vs. THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF

¶56

INDIA AND OTHERS, AIR 1979 SC 1628, and there fore, all actions o f the instrumentality of State are pregnant with public law element is misconceived

¶57

The Apex Court in the case of LIC of INDIA

¶58

Vs. ESCORTS LIMITED AND OTHERS, AIR 1986 SC

¶59

1370, has held as under:

¶60

“While it cannot be doubted that every action of the State or an instrumentality o f the State must be informed by reason and that, in

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Art.226 or Art.32 of the Constitution. Art.14 cannot be construed as a charter for judicial review of State actions in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions. For example, if the action of the State is political or sovereign in character , the court will keep away from it. The Court will not debate academic matters or concern itself with the intricacies of trade and commerce . If the action o f the State is related to contractual obligations or obligations arising out of the tort, the Court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. Broadly speaking, the court will examine actions of State if they pertain to the public law domain and refrain from examining them if they pertain to the private law field.”

¶65

6A. The above legal position apart, the question whether the termination of lease is good or bad in law and if bad, what remedy is to be provided require oral and documentary evidence and thus, the trial in a full fledged way becomes inevitable. Ordinarily such disputed facts are not adjudicated in extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, when the aggrieved has an alternative and efficacious remedy of suit. Petitioner is at liberty to avail the said remedy.

¶66

Therefore, the petition is benefit ft of merits and consequently is dismissed . However, the dismissal o f the Writ Petition will not come in the way of petitioner

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16213 WP No. 112262 of 2020

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

seeking rescheduling of the loan transaction with the 3r d respondent Bank in accordance with law .

¶71

The Bank may consider the hardship

¶72

occasioned by the abrupt termination o f the leases in question.”

¶73

The petitioner, appearing in person, would contend that the Bank, which had taken the premises on lease, has not vacated the premises at all.

¶74

Learned counsel Sri K.L. Patil submits that the Bank

¶75

had long ago, in the year 2018 itself, vacated the premises, and the petitioner has sold the premises even after such vacation.

¶76

As observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,

¶77

these are seriously disputed questions of fact, which cannot be thrashed out in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate forum, the petition stands disposed of.

¶78

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶79

AC CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 162

Sri. Hatelsab v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Hatelsab v. State Bank of India

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

Similar cases

M/S. Vistanest Ventures LLP Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Sri Lingappa S/O Shivajogappa Hutagonnavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrappa Basappa Banakar Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Veereshkumar Mallappa Topalakatti S/O Mallappa Topalakatti Vs the Government of Karnataka

Shri. Laxmi Vividoddesha Primary Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri. Irayya Gurushantayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka