Dismissed¶37

M/S. Bharath Rice Industries v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2025WP/21066/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bharath Rice Industries and partners v. State Bank of India (Authorized Officer, SME Br., Tumkur); WP No. 21066 of 2021 (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka, E.S. Indiresh J., decided 25.11.2025. Keywords: refund of excess amount in loan account; OTS scheme settlement; Sale Notice dated 03.03.2017 confirmed by DRT-II Bengaluru final order dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure-R.1); alternative remedy before Appellate Authority under Debts Recovery Tribunal Act; Articles 226 and 227; writ dismissed, no interference.

What did the court decide?

If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Annexure R.1), it is open for them to challenge the same before the Appellate Authority as per the provisions contained under the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act. ¶36

M/S. Bharath Rice Industries Vs State Bank of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49089 WP No. 21066 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 21066 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S BHARATH RICE INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS,

¶10

I. SMT. A NASEEMA, II. HASEENA BEGUM, III. MR. ALEEMULLA BAIG, IV. MR. KAMAL PASHA,

¶11

SMT. A NASEEMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O. SRI. ALEEMULLA BAIG, R/AT NO.12-B-CROSS, NEAR NIMRAH MOSQUE, P.H. COLONY, TUMKUR

¶12

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

¶13

MR. ALEEMULLA BAIG AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O. LATE SRI. HASSAN BAIG, R/AT NO.12-B-CROSS, NEAR NIMRAH MOSQUE, P.H. COLONY, TUMKUR

¶14

SMT. HASEENA BEGUM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O. SRI. KAMAL PASHA

¶15

MR. KAMAL PASHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O. SRI. P. ABDUL REHMAN

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:49089 WP No. 21066 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

PETITIONERS NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NO.30, 5^TH CROSS NEW NO.72B, 5^TH MAIN P.H. COLONY, TUMKUR

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.A., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

STATE BANK OF INDIA THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, (WEF 1.04.2017) SME BR.4^TH CROSS, ASHOKA NAGAR, OPP. TUMKUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶26

¶27

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO REFUND THE EXCESS AMOUNT LYING IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONERS, ON SETTLING THE ACCOUNT UNDER ELIGIBLE OTS SCHEME, WITHOUT ANY DISCRETION AND DISCRIMINATION ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 12 PERCENT P.A., COMPOUNDED MONTHLY/QUARTERLY, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:49089 WP No. 21066 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Heard the counsel appearing for the parties.

¶35

In this petition, the petitioners have sought for a direction to refund the excess amount lying in the Loan Account of the petitioners.

¶36

On careful consideration of the final order dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure-R.1) by the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Karnataka at Bengaluru wherein, the Sale Notice dated 03.03.2017 is held to be valid and confirmed in respect of Item No.1, 1(b) and 2 of the Schedule mentioned therein. It is also to be noted that, if the petitioners are being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Annexure R.1, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the same before the Appellate Authority as per the provisions contained under the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act.

¶37

In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in this petition. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶38

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶39

rs/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21/CT-SG

M/S. Bharath Rice Industries v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Bharath Rice Industries v. State Bank of India

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

Prestige Exora Business Parks Ltd., Vs the Regional Commissioner

Smt. Mariyam Bi Vs the General Manager

Sri R Vijaychandra Vs Smt E v Ashalatha

Prakash Chand Kothari, Vs the Sub Registrar

Smt Nagaveni Vs the State of Karnataka

S K Sanil Vs K Prakash Shenoy