Sri. Kumar Natraj Vs Udaya Souharda Credit Co… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Kumar Natraj Vs Udaya Souharda Credit Co… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without interference; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act; benefit of the subsisting interim arrangement extended for four weeks; any fresh interim-protection request before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to be considered uninfluenced by the earlier interim arrangements.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner could instead avail the statutory remedy under section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Court's answer

The Court finds no reason to entertain the writ petition; the petitioner must avail the remedy under section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of without any interference, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, subject to all just exceptions.

Key takeaways

Lest there be precipitation without due opportunity, the benefit of the existing interim arrangement is extended for a period of four weeks, the petitioner having had the advantage of interim orders for over eight months.ratio¶30
If the petitioner avails the remedy under the SARFAESI Act with a request for interim protection, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall consider that request uninfluenced by the interim arrangement previously provided by this Court.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (B M Shyam Prasad J.), 04.08.2025, WP No. 35001 of 2024 (GM-RES): Kumar Natraj v. Udaya Souharda Credit Co Operative Ltd. and another. Writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashment of the order dated 10.12.2024 in C.Misc.555/2024 of the XXXII Additional CJM, Bengaluru (Annexure C). An interim order of this Court had restored possession of the subject property to the petitioner subject to deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-; the deposit was made and possession restored, the petitioner enjoying the advantage of interim orders for over eight months. Holding: the Court declines to entertain the writ petition because the petitioner can avail the statutory remedy under section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; the petition is disposed of without interference with liberty reserved to pursue that remedy subject to all just exceptions; the benefit of the interim arrangement is extended for four weeks lest there be precipitation without due opportunity; and if the petitioner seeks interim protection before the Debt Recovery Tribunal while availing the SARFAESI remedy, the Tribunal shall consider the request uninfluenced by the interim arrangement and the arrangement provided by the Court.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30117 WP No. 35001 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 35001 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KUMAR NATRAJ AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SRI. NATRAJ MUDALIAR, RESIDING AT NO.K-50E, 13^TH CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU 560 021.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K S GANESHA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

Location: High Court of Karnataka

UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LTD., (REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI ACT) UDAYA SAHAKARA BHAVANA, 29/11, 1^ST MAIN, MOUNT JOY ROAD, HANUMANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 019. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

SRI. NAGARAJAN.D.N, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAN, RESIDING AT NO.SHANTHA BHAVAN,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30117 WP No. 35001 of 2024

HC-KAR

NO.439, 2^ND CROSS, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU -79.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ANIRUDH A KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PAWAN SHYAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2024 PASSED IN C.MISC.555/2024 BY THE 32^ND ADDL. CJM, BENGALURU, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE C.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2024 in C.Misc.555/2024 on the file of the XXXII Additional CJM, Bengaluru. This Court has granted interim order for restoring possession of the subject property to the petitioner subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that this amount is deposited and the possession is

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30117 WP No. 35001 of 2024

HC-KAR

restored. The crucial question for consideration is should this Court entertain this writ petition when the petitioner could indeed avail remedy under section 17[4A] of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, the ' SARFAESI Act'].

This Court does not find any reason to entertain this petition and the petitioner must avail remedy in terms of the aforementioned provision. As such, the writ petition must be disposed of without any interference. However the petitioner has had the advantage of interim orders for over eight months. This Court is inclined, lest there be precipitation without due opportunity, to extend the benefit for a period of four weeks from today.

Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act subject to all just exceptions, the petition stands disposed of observing that if the petitioner avails remedy under the SARFAESI Act, with a request for interim protection, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall consider the request for

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30117 WP No. 35001 of 2024

HC-KAR

interim protection uninfluenced by the interim arrangement and the arrangement now provided by this Court.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

NV