Brahmi Wright Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

Brahmi Wright Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners to avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the sale notice dated 23.07.2025; respondent may proceed with the sale but to defer confirming it for two weeks; if the remedy is availed within two weeks, the DRT may consider the petitioners' request for protection uninfluenced by the arrangement that prevailed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who are guarantors/mortgagor aggrieved by enforcement proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, must avail the statutory remedy thereunder rather than seek intervention under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

Court's answer

The settled rule is that a person aggrieved by proceedings under the SARFAESI Act must avail the remedy thereunder, and no exception can be made in the present case to this settled rule.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioners to avail their remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as against the now proposed sale.

Key takeaways

The respondent may proceed with the sale but is observed to defer confirming the sale for a period of two weeks.ratio¶44
If the petitioners avail the permitted remedy within two weeks, the DRT can consider their request for grant of protection uninfluenced by the arrangement that has prevailed.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI Act - Writ petition by guarantors/mortgagor against possession notice dated 10/01/2024 under Section 13(4) and enforcement proceedings by secured creditor - Held, the settled rule is that a person aggrieved by proceedings under the SARFAESI Act must avail the remedy thereunder, and no exception can be made in the present case - Petition disposed of relegating the petitioners to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the sale notice dated 23.07.2025 - Respondent may proceed with the sale but to defer confirming the sale for two weeks - If the petitioners avail the remedy within two weeks, the DRT can consider their request for grant of protection uninfluenced by the arrangement that has prevailed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30761 WP No. 2210 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2210 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

BRAHMI WRIGHT TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD REGD COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 1503, BRAHMI 8^TH MAIN 4^TH CROSS KENGERI UPANAGAR BANGALORE - 560060 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI JAGADISH B SURYANARAYANA.

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI JAGADISH B SURYNARAYANA AGED 46 YEARS S/O LATE SURYANARAYANA B R MANAGING DIRECTOR BRAHMI WRIGHT TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD R/AT NO 1503, BRAHMI 8^TH MAIN 4^TH CROSS KENGERI UPANAGAR NEAR KARNATAKA BANK ATM, BANGALORE - 560 060.

SMT VIJAYALAKSHMI SURYANARAYANA AGED 74 YEARS W/O LATE SURYANARAYANA B R CHAIR PERSON/DIRECTOR OF BOARD OF COMPANY BRAHMI WRIGHT TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD R/AT NO 1503, BRAHMI 8^TH MAIN 4^TH CROSS KENGERI UPANAGAR NEAR KARNATAKA BANK

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30761 WP No. 2210 of 2024

HC-KAR

ATM, BANGALORE - 560 060.

SRI C VENKATACHALAPATHY AGED 57 YEARS S/O CHIKKAVENKATESHAPPA MORTGAGOR, R/AT NO 386, NAGARWARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI AREBIC COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE - 560 045

…PETITIONERS

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

AND:

THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK SME, KUMBALAGODU BRANCH, SY NO 24/12, NO 236, 2^ND BLOCK, JNANA BHARATHI LAYOUT, KUMBALAGODU BANGALORE - 560 074

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.PREETHU.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS .i) QUASH THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 10/01/2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION (SECTION 13(4) OF SARFAESI ACT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ii) DIRECTION IN

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30761 WP No. 2210 of 2024

HC-KAR

THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT TO REGULARIZE THE SOD LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER NO. 1 COMPANY, BY PERMITTING PETITIONERS TO MAKE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING OVERDUE AMOUNT TO REGULARIZE THE SOD LOAN ACCOUNT IN TERMS OF ACCOUNTS STATEMENT ANNEXURE-B, WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4-5 MONTHS TIME GRANTED AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO OPERATE SOD LOAN ACCOUNT REGULARLY AND CARRY ON THE BUSINESS.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

This petition is by the guarantors, and the petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor [ the respondent ] for enforcement of the secured assets including the petitioners' apartment under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30761 WP No. 2210 of 2024

HC-KAR

of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act' ].

This Court has granted interim order on 31.01.2024 on terms, but with the petitioners failing to comply with the terms upon which such interim order is granted, this Court has vacated the interim order on 12.03.2024. Thereafter the respondent has sold one of the secured assets owned by the borrower, and presently, the fourth petitioner’s apartment is proposed for sale on 12.08.2025. Sri.R.S.Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court must intervene because the petitioners are only guarantors and the fourth petitioner has settled bonafide this property in favour of his daughter.

This Court must opine that the settled rule is that a person aggrieved by the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act must avail remedy thereunder, and no

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30761 WP No. 2210 of 2024

HC-KAR

exception can be made in the present case to this settled rule. The petition must therefore be disposed of relegating the petitioners to avail their remedy as against the now proposed sale under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act but with certain protection which would not prejudice such proceedings. In the light of the afore, the following:

ORDER

[A] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as against the sale notice dated 23.07.2025 observing that the respondent could proceed with the sale but defer confirming the sale for a period of two [2] weeks.

[B] This Court further observes that if the petitioners avail remedy as is now permitted within two [2] weeks, the DRT can consider the petitioners' request for grant of

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30761 WP No. 2210 of 2024

HC-KAR

protection uninfluenced by the arrangement

that has prevailed.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA ct:sr