M/S Sree Ganesh Builders and Developers Vs Canara Bank

M/S SREE GANESH BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.SANGANA YERRA REDDY, S/O. LATE S RAMI REDDY A, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT. NO. 132/3, CSV COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, CHANDAPUR, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 560 081. REGISTERED UNDER ARTICLE 40(A) PARTNERSHIP

¶14

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREERAM T NAYAK.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:30075 WP No. 2631 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24218 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

CANARA BANK CHANDAPURA CIRCLE BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, BRANCH OFFICE AT JANGAMA REDDY BUILDING, ANEKAL ROAD, CHANDAPUR CIRCLE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 099.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SMT.SOWBHAGYA N A., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE E-AUCTION / SALE NOTICE DATED 09.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AS ILLEGAL AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT FOLLOWING MANDATORY PROVISIONS; CONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION INTIATED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SARFAESI ACT IS NULL AND VOID.

¶23

IN W.P.No. 24218/2024

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

M/S SREE GANESH BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.SANGANA YERRA REDDY, S/O. LATE S RAMI REDDY A, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:30075 WP No. 2631 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24218 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

NO. 132/3, CSV COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, CHANDAPUR, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 560 081. REGISTERED UNDER ARTICLE 40(A) PARTNERSHIP

¶30

…PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI. SHREERAM T NAYAK.,ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

CANARA BANK CHANDAPURA CIRCLE BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, BRANCH OFFICE AT JANGAMA REDDY BUILDING, ANEKAL ROAD, CHANDAPUR CIRCLE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 099.

¶34

…RESPONDENT

¶35

(BY SMT.SOWBHAGYA N A., ADVOCATE)

¶36

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTIMATION SALE TO BORROWER DATED 29.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT FOLLOWING MANDATORY PROVISIONS.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:30075 WP No. 2631 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24218 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

These petitions are at the instance of a

¶44

Borrower who is aggrieved by initiation of the proceedings by the respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act' ] to liquidate the secured assets [ six sites ] as mentioned in the impugned Sale Notices. The respondent has notified four sites for sale vide the Notice dated 29.08.2024, which is called in question by the petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.24218/2024.

¶45

This Court, on 02.09.2024, has directed

¶46

the respondent not to issue Sale Certificate to the successful bidder subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is asserted that the petitioner has deposited this amount within the time allowed by this Court, and notwithstanding the same, the respondent has issued another Sale Notice dated

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:30075 WP No. 2631 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24218 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

01.09.2025 which is impugned in the next writ petition in W.P. No. 2631/2025. This Court, in this writ petition in W.P. No. 2631/2025, because of the pendency of the first writ petition, has granted an interim order on 31.01.2025 directing the respondent-Bank not to precipitate any further under the impugned notice.

¶51

Sri Shreeram T Nayak, the learned

¶52

counsel for the petitioner, submits that notwithstanding this Court's interim order dated 31.01.2025 in the writ petition in W.P. No. 2631/2025, the respondent has confirmed the sale and the Sale Certificate is also registered and this Court must intervene because it violates this Court's interim order. Smt Sowbhagya N A, the learned counsel for the respondent, clarifies that the respondent has only concluded the sale for two sites viz . site Nos.55 and 56 that are part of the Sale Notice impugned in the writ petition in W.P. No.

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:30075 WP No. 2631 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24218 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

24218/2024 and that the sale is completed. The learned counsel proposes to offer reasons to justify why the sale is completed and that there is no violation.

¶57

In rejoinder, Sri Shreeram T Nayak

¶58

submits that the petitioner is willing to refund every amount that is payable to the purchaser and also the expenses incurred by the Bank in concluding those two sales and pay the remaining outstanding for closure of the loan. The learned counsel proposes to emphasize that even if the petitioner has to reimburse the respondent for the sale price received and the costs incurred and write off the entire loan it would not be more than Rs.75-80 lakhs with Smt Sowbhagya N A asserting that the outstanding even with the sale of the two sites will be over Rs.48 lakhs.

¶59

These rival submissions are considered, and the purchaser is not a party to these proceedings. The petitioner's grievance with the

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:30075 WP No. 2631 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24218 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

impugned Notices, including the grievance that the sale is despite the interim order, must be examined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal [DRT] under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for complete adjudication

¶64

and there is no reason for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition must therefore be disposed of accordingly, but in so far as the protection that could be to the petitioner until the petitioner avails the alternative remedy in terms of this Court's observation, this Court is of the view that the respondent must not be precipitative as regards the four sites which are to be sold. This Court is extending this benefit because the petitioner has had the advantage of the interim order for almost eleven months as of now. Hence, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

[a] The petitions stand disposed of relegating

¶67

the petitioner to avail remedy under

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:30075 WP No. 2631 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24218 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act directing

¶72

the respondent not to take any precipitative action insofar the four sites that remain unsold for ten [10] weeks from today.

¶73

[b] It is observed that if the petitioner avails the alternative remedy in terms of the liberty now granted, the Authority under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act shall consider the grant of benefit to the petitioner uninfluenced by the interim orders granted by this Court as of this date and the further protection extended

¶74

by this order. It is needless to observe that all questions are left open to be answered.

¶75

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶76

AN/-

M/S Sree Ganesh Builders and Developers v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sree Ganesh Builders and Developers v. Canara Bank

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

Smt Deverama @ Parvathama Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Auto Rickshaw Union (R) Hejamadi Vs the State of Karnataka

R Devashritha (Since Deceased on 07.08.2018) by His Legal Representatives D Sumithra Vs N/S Chandra Exhibitors

M/S. Health and Glow Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri M S Raghu

Sri Ravishankar P Vs the Union Bank of India

Sri. Kumar Natraj Vs Udaya Souharda Credit Co. Operative Ltd.