Dismissed¶32

M/S Sapthagiri Constructions v. the Authorized Officer

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2025WP/23897/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI auction sale notice challenge; WP No. 23897 of 2021 (GM-RES); High Court of Karnataka; decided 06-08-2025 by Justice R. Nataraj; dismissed for non-prosecution due to absence of petitioner's counsel; no adjudication of Rule 6(2)/Rule 8(6) sale notice dated 19.11.2021 of Bank of Baroda; interim order of 23.12.2021 requiring 30% deposit unfulfilled; auction sale concluded 30.05.2022; no costs or monetary award.

What did the court decide?

Since the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present when the petition came on for orders, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. The validity of the sale notice was not adjudicated on merits. ¶32

M/S Sapthagiri Constructions Vs the Authorized… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:30499 WP No. 23897 of 2021

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 23897 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S SAPTHAGIRI CONSTRUCTIONS, PROP. SRI. D.S. MOHAN, S/O LATE D SUBRAMANYA NAIDU, AGED 45 YEARS, OFFICE AT NO. 70, BALAJINAGAR, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560061.

¶10

SRI.D.S. MOHAN, S/O LATE D SUBRAMANYA NAIDU, AGED 45 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 70, BALAJINAGAR, SUBRAMNAYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560061.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. MEENA W/O SRI.D.S. MOHAN, AGED 35 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 70, BALAJINAGAR, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560061.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT. SANDHYA U PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BANK OF BARODA, ZONAL OFFICE, VIJAYA TOWERS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30499 WP No. 23897 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

2^ND FLOOR, NO.41/2, TRINITY CIRCLE, MG ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI.VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DTD.19.11.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D BEARING NO.BOB/BRIGADE/EA/08/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ITS CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has challenged an auction sale notice dated

¶27

19.11.2021 issued under Rule 6(2) and Rule 8(6) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act').

¶28

This Court had granted an interim order subject to the petitioner depositing 30% of the amount. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the respondent/bank that the petitioner has not deposited the amount as per the interim order dated

¶29