M/S. Hotel Keerthana International Vs Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

M/S. Hotel Keerthana International Vs Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition permitted to be withdrawn by memo dated 03rd December, 2025; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Tribunal for redressal; the period spent before the High Court to be condoned by the competent Tribunal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; prayers for issuance of a sanction letter in terms of Annexure-A and for quashing of the 21.10.2020 order (Annexure-F) were not granted on merits, all contentions being kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to consideration for the scheme of One Time Settlement (OTS) of its dues with the respondent-Bank, including issuance of a sanction letter in terms of Annexure-A. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Accepting the petitioner's memo dated 03rd December, 2025 seeking leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the memo, with all contentions of the parties kept open.

Key takeaways

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the averments in the writ petition, the Court was of the view that no interference was called for in this writ petition, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Bijnor v. Meenal Agarwal (AIR 2022 SC 56).obiter¶27
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Tribunal for redressal of its grievance, and the period spent by the petitioner before this Court shall be condoned by the competent Tribunal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (E.S. Indiresh, J.), decided 03.12.2025 — M/S. Hotel Keerthana International (rep. by proprietor C.N. Santha Kumar) v. Assistant General Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, Bank of Maharashtra. The petitioner sought (i) a direction to the Bank to issue a sanction letter in terms of Annexure-A under a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme of dues, and (ii) quashing of the Bank's order dated 21.10.2020 vide Annexure-F. Having heard counsel and perused the averments, and in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Bijnor v. Meenal Agarwal (AIR 2022 SC 56), the Court was of the view that no interference was called for. Before concluding, the petitioner's counsel filed a memo dated 03.12.2025 seeking leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum as and when the cause of action arises; the memo was taken on record and accepted, and the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the memo, keeping open all contentions of the parties. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Tribunal for redressal, with a clarification that the period spent before the High Court shall be condoned by the competent Tribunal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. No adjudication on the merits of the OTS claim or the Annexure-F order.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50573 WP NO.4923 OF 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.4923 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S. HOTEL KEERTHANA INTERNATIONAL BENGALURU - HOSUR ROAD, ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 562 106. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. C.N. SANTHA KUMAR.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, NO.13, PAXAL TOWERS, K.R. ROAD, OPP. VANI VILAS HOSPITAL, BENGALURU - 560 002.

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.B. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO FURTHER ISSUE A SANCTIONED LETTER IN TERMS OF ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21^ST OCTOBER, 2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F; AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50573 WP NO.4923 OF 2021

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is to consider the case of the petitioner for the scheme of One Time Settlement (OTS) of the dues with the respondent-Bank.

Heard Sri. Saravana S., learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri. V.B. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in this writ petition in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BIJNOR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK

LIMITED, BIJNOR AND OTHERS vs. MEENAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2022 SC 56.

However, at this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed memo dated 03^rd December, 2025, seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner as and when the cause of action arises.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50573 WP NO.4923 OF 2021

HC-KAR

The said memo is taken on record.

Accepting the memo filed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, keeping open all the contentions of the parties, writ petition is disposed of in terms of the memo.

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the

competent Tribunal for redressal of its grievance. It is made clear that, the period spent by the petitioner before this Court shall be condoned by the competent Tribunal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21