Disposed¶35

Mrs Gayathri v. the Administrator

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2025WP/23240/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: SARFAESI Act; Section 17 SARFAESI Act; Rule 8(1) SARFAESI Rules; possession notice; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; alternative remedy; borrower; overdraft facility; OTS Scheme; Rs.10 Crores outstanding. Parties: Mrs Gayathri v. The Administrator, Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Netkallappa Circle and The Deputy Manager, Shree Guru Raghavendra Bank Niyamitha. Counsel: Smt. Jyothi S Kempegowda for petitioner. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad. Related case: W.P. No.11096/2021 (order dated 23.11.2024). Disposition: writ petition disposed of subject to all just exceptions.

What did the court decide?

The circumstances relied upon by the petitioner must be examined under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. ¶35

Mrs Gayathri Vs the Administrator — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:35065 WP No. 23240 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 23240 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MRS GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O LATE N.GANGADHAR NO.30, 11^TH MAIN ROAD, DR.VK GOKAK ROAD, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560019.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SMT.JYOTHI S KEMPEGOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE ADMINISTRATOR SRI GURU RAGHAVENDRA SAHAKARA BANK NETKALLAPPA CIRCLE NO.15, SC ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:35065 WP No. 23240 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE DEPUTY MANAGER SHREE GURURAGHAVENDRA BANK NIYAMITHA NO.15, SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD, NETTAKALAPPA CIRCLE, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 30.05.2025 BEARING NO.SGR/AZ/13(4)472/L-189/25-26 UNDER RULE 8(1) OF THE SARFAESI RULES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AT ANNEXURE A; (B) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.07.25 BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT BANK AT ANNX-C.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:35065 WP No. 23240 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is admittedly a borrower and she

¶29

is aggrieved by the respondent's decision to issue the impugned notice dated 30.05.2025 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'] and the Rules thereunder. The petitioner relies upon the orders of this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.11096/2021. This Court has disposed of this petition by order dated 23.11.2024 with directions as under:

¶30

"In the above view of the matter, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner No.1 has passed away, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.6 to make available the details of the overdraft facility, loan account and statement of accounts to be handed over to petitioner No.2, provided, petitioner No.2 approaches respondent No.6 or sends his a uthorized representative to collect the same. In case, any OTS Scheme is available with respondent

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:35065 WP No. 23240 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

No.6, same shall also be made available to petitioner No.2 in accordance with law."

¶35

Smt. Jyothi S Kempegowda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned notice is without furnishing details as required under this Court's directions. However, the learned counsel does not dispute that the outstanding amount is in excess of Rs.10 Crores according to the respondent, and this Court is of the view that the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner must be examined under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and there is no occasion for this Court to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding such remedy. Hence, the petition stands disposed of subject to all just exceptions.

¶36

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶37

AN/-

Mrs Gayathri v. the Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Gayathri v. the Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nanjundeshwara Education Society Vs M/S Protium Finance Limited

M/S Bethal Education Trust (R) Vs M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd.

Sri Dr Suresh Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Girish S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kavitha Srinath Venkatappa Vs the Union of India

Smt Beenashree Vs Canara Bank