Disposed¶43

Smt Manjula Jeevan Kishore v. the Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2025WP/26332/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (B M Shyam Prasad J, 01-09-2025) — WP No. 26332 of 2025 (GM-RES) — SARFAESI Act Section 17 alternative remedy; writ under Article 226 against Magistrate's order appointing Court Commissioner for possession of defaulted home-loan property; Authorised Officer, Textile Cooperative Bank Ltd.; two-week deferment of coercive measures/dispossession; questions left open to DRT.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act; respondent directed not to take coercive measures to dispossess the petitioners for a period of two weeks; petitioners to file a copy of the order with the respondent. ¶43

Smt Manjula Jeevan Kishore Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 lies against the Magistrate's order appointing a Court Commissioner to take possession under the SARFAESI Act, where the borrowers do not dispute the loan or the default but object to the manner of execution of the possession warrant, or whether they must avail the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶38

Court's answer

Where borrowers do not dispute that they are borrowers in default but grievance relates only to the manner in which the possession warrant is executed, they must avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and there can be no interference by the writ court in the petition.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

To provide an equitable arrangement giving the petitioners a real opportunity to avail the Section 17 remedy, the respondent was directed to defer recovery of possession in terms of the order dated 05.05.2025 for a period of two weeks, leaving open all questions to be considered by the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act if the petitioners avail their remedy.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI Act, 2002 — Writ petition under Article 226 against order of VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crl. Misc. No.1146/2025 appointing a Court Commissioner to take possession of the mortgaged residential property — Petitioners did not dispute the home loan or the default but objected to the manner of execution of the possession warrant — Held, such a grievance must be agitated under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and the writ court will not interfere — However, to enable a real opportunity to avail that remedy, the respondent Bank was directed to defer recovery of possession in terms of the impugned order for two weeks, leaving all questions open to the DRT — Petition disposed of with liberty to move under Section 17 SARFAESI; respondent restrained from taking coercive measures to dispossess the petitioners for two weeks; copy of the order to be filed with the respondent.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:34129 WP No. 26332 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 26332 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT MANJULA JEEVAN KISHORE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O K JEEVAN KISHORE,

¶10

MR. M VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O PEDDAYARAIAH ALIAS YARAPPA

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O M VENKATARAMANA,

¶14

SMT. M V LALITHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O NAVEEN

¶15

SMT. M V USHARANI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O P PUNEETH KUMAR

¶16

SRI V PUJIT PULIN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS S/O M VENKATARAMANA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:34129 WP No. 26332 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.42, 4^TH CROSS, CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560064.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER TEXTILE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.16, 1ST A MAIN ROAD, SUDHAMANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560027.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5-5-2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF VII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN CRL. MISC. NO.1146/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE -C AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUING NOTICE BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE -D.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:34129 WP No. 26332 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners do not dispute that they have borrowed a home loan from the respondent and they also do not dispute that they are in default but they are aggrieved by the respondent having recourse to the proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, ' the SARFAESI Act' ]. The petitioners have called in question the order dated 05.05.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1146/2025 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. The Magistrate Court has appointed a learned member of the Bar to act as a ' Court Commissioner' to take possession of the subject property with further directions on drawing up of an inventory and filing a report into the Court.

¶34

Sri Mohana Chandra P., the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that if the Court's direction

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34129 WP No. 26332 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

is to secure possession through the Court Commissioner as aforesaid, the respondent has appointed certain third parties to recover possession from the petitioners. The learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioners own no other property other than the subject property [ a residential property ] and they are bona fides in stating that they will clear the outstanding if two [2] weeks time is granted.

¶38

If the petitioners do not dispute that they are borrowers and there is a default but want to make a grievance against the manner in which the warrant is being executed, they must necessarily avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and they must be at liberty in this regard and there cannot be any interference in this petition. However, this Court must also provide for an equitable arrangement so that the petitioners have a real opportunity of availing their remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and this could be achieved if the

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34129 WP No. 26332 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

respondent is directed to defer the recovery of possession in terms of the order dated 05.05.2025 for a period of two [2] weeks from today leaving open all questions to be considered by the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act if the petitioners avail their remedy. Hence, dispensing with notice the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

[A] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act directing the respondent not to take coercive measures to dispossess the petitioners for a period of two [2] weeks from today

¶44

[B] The petitioners are called upon to file a copy of this order with the respondent.

¶45

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶46

SA ct:sr

Smt Manjula Jeevan Kishore v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manjula Jeevan Kishore v. the Authorised Officer

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

Sri S S Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka

K. M. Jayarama Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Spoorthy Integrated Solutions (I) Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Equinox Investors and Agents Welfare Association Vs the Special Officer and Competent Authority

M/S Siddhartha Corrugated Carton Box Industries Vs the Branch Manager Union Bank of India

Mr. Harishchandra Acharya Vs Canara Bank.