Dismissed¶43

Saroja.N Jain v. Deputy Manager and Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2025WP/18804/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No.18804 of 2023 (GM-RES); maintainability of writ petition; efficacious alternative remedy before competent Tribunal; challenge to notice dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure-M) issued by Deputy Manager/Authorised Officer, Sree Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha; prayer for return of original property documents; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal; Justice E.S. Indiresh; decided 21.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Tribunal, if so desires ¶43

Saroja.N Jain Vs Deputy Manager and Authorised… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48102 WP NO.18804 OF 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.18804 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SAROJA N. JAIN D/O NITHAL CHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.32, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, BSK 3^RD STAGE, PAPIAH GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 085. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

DEPUTY MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER SREE GURU RAGHAVENDRA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA NO.15, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD, NETTAKALLAPPA CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SREE GURU RAGHAVENDRA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.15, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD, NETTAKALLAPPA CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE GURU RAGHAVENDRA CO-OPERATIVE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:48102 WP NO.18804 OF 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BANK LIMITED, NO.15, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD NETTAKALLAPPA CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶20

4. GOVERNOR

¶21

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. M.N. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. MANIK, B.T., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 28^TH JUNE, 2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RETURN THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PETITIONERS; AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioner is assailing the Notice dated 28^th June, 2023 (Annexure-M) issued by the respondent No.1; inter alia sought for direction to the respondent-Bank to return

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:48102 WP NO.18804 OF 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the original documents of the property in question to the petitioner.

¶32

Heard Sri. S.B. Halli, learned counsel appearing for

¶33

the petitioner; Sri. M.N. Umesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri. Manik B.T., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

¶34

Sri. M.N. Umesh, learned counsel appearing for

¶35

respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner has not complied with the Interim Order dated 20^th March, 2025 passed by this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy before the competent Tribunal to challenge the issuance of impugned notice by the respondent No.1.

¶36

In the light of submission made by learned

¶37

appearing for the respondent No.1, I have perused the averments made in the writ petition. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, as the petitioner is challenging the Notice dated 28^th June, 2023 (Annexure-M) issued by the respondent No.1, I am of the view that the writ

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:48102 WP NO.18804 OF 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, reserving liberty to

¶42

the petitioner to approach the competent Tribunal, if so desires,

¶43

writ petition is dismissed.

¶44