Disposed¶45

M/S Skd Exports v. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2025WP/23803/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act Section 14 possession; Section 18 appeal pending before DRAT; deferment of physical possession for four weeks; vacating notice dated 31-07-2025; Section 14 order dated 20-01-2024 in Crl. Misc. No. 2362/2023; Securitisation Application No. 53/2024; office objections before DRAT; Karnataka Bank Ltd; SKD Exports; Nithin Chakravarthi Balaiah; Kamalamma; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227; interim protection to enable regularization of loan account; High Court of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to defer taking actual possession of the subject property for four weeks from the date of the order; all questions including any interim arrangement in the petitioners' appeal left open to the DRAT. ¶45

M/S Skd Exports Vs M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court must call upon the respondent to defer action to recover possession of a residential property from the petitioners.

¶31

Court's answer

In the peculiar circumstances presented, the respondent must defer taking action to recover physical possession of the property pursuant to the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for a period of four weeks effective from the date of the order, so that the appellate remedy is not rendered nugatory leading to protraction.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

All questions, including any interim arrangement that must be granted in the petitioners' appeal, are left open to be considered by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by M/s SKD Exports and two other petitioners against the vacating notice dated 31-07-2025 issued by M/s Karnataka Bank Ltd pursuant to the Section 14 order dated 20-01-2024 passed by the learned 30th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl. Misc. No. 2362/2023. The petitioners had availed their remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the Section 14 order, filing their appeal on 04.07.2025 against the DRT order in Securitisation Application No. 53/2024; the appeal was yet to be listed before the DRAT, with the respondent's counsel submitting that it was not listed because the petitioners had not complied with office objections. Holding that in the peculiar circumstances the respondent must defer taking action to recover physical possession pursuant to the Section 14 order for four weeks effective from the date of the order so that the appellate remedy is not rendered nugatory leading to protraction, the Court disposed of the petition directing deferment of actual possession for four weeks, leaving all questions including any interim arrangement in the appeal open to be considered by the DRAT.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31231 WP No. 23803 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 23803 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S SKD EXPORTS RPTD BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. NITHIN CHAKRAVARTHI BALAIAH.

¶11

MR NITHIN CHAKRAVARTHI BALAIAH S/O BALAIAH RAMAIAH AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MRS. KAMALAMMA, W/O. LATE BALAIAH RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO. 233, VIDYANAGAR, KANCHAGHATTA NEW EXTN, TUMKURU DISTRICT TIPTUR - 572 201.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SMT. KAVITHA D.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD (REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, 1^ST FLOOR, FKCCI BUILDING, KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:31231 WP No. 23803 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

IFSC KARB0000060 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI.K.V. SHYAMA PRASADA., ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE VACATING NOTICE DATED 31-07-2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE G UNDER THE SECTION 14 ORDER DATED 20-01-2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 30^TH ADDI. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN CRI. MISC. NO. 2362/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE A DECLARING THAT THE ENTIRE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ARE ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002. B) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT BANK NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND TO ACCEPT THE PETITIONER NO.2S REPRESENTATION LETTER DATED 04-03-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE TO ENABLE HIM TO REGULARIZE HIS LOAN ACCOUNTS BY CLEARING THE OVERDUE BALANCES TO MAKE HIS LOAN ACCOUNTS AS STANDARD ASSETS.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:31231 WP No. 23803 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The short question for consideration is: whether this Court must call upon the respondent to defer action to recover possession of a residential property from the petitioners , and this question arises in the light of the submissions recorded by this Court on 07.08.2025 which reads as under:

¶32

Ms. D. Kavitha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court may protect the petitioners against precipitation because their appeal as against the Debts Recovery Tribunal [DRT] in Securitisation Application No.53/2024 is not listed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal[DRAT] and the appeal will generally be listed after two months. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have filed their appeal on 04.07.2025.

¶33

When queried specifically, the learned counsel states that not just the orders under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [the SARFAESI Act], even the proceedings under Section 13 thereof are called in question in the appeal.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:31231 WP No. 23803 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

This Court has called upon the respondent to desist from taking precipitous action. Smt Kavitha D, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K V Shyama Prasada, the learned counsel for the respondent, are heard for final disposal of the petition.

¶38

This Court must record that it emerges undisputed that the petitioners have availed their remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act as against the Order under Section 14 thereof and the petitioners’ appeal is yet to be listed. There is some controversy about the petitioners’ appeal being listed before the DRAT with Sri K V Shyama Prasada submitting that the appeal is not listed because the petitioners have not complied with the office objections.

¶39

These submissions are carefully considered, and this Court opines that, in the peculiar circumstances presented, the respondent must defer

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:31231 WP No. 23803 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

taking action to recover physical possession of the property pursuant to the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for a period of four [4] weeks effective from today so that the appellate remedy is not rendered nugatory leading to protraction. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petition stands disposed of directing the respondent to defer taking actual possession of subject property for four [4] weeks from today observing that all questions including any interim arrangement that must be granted in the petitioners’ appeal are left open to be considered by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT].

¶46

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶47

AN/-

M/S Skd Exports v. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Skd Exports v. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Garudachala Properties Private Limited Vs Capri Global Capital Limited (Cgcl)

Mr. Laxman Tukappa Vs Hdfc Bank Limited

Shaik Shahabauddin Vs the Competent Authority

Khadar Sab Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H Kempahanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjula K Vs State of Karnataka