Sri. Sagar v. Iyer v the Authorized Officer

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2025WP/6229/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (B M Shyam Prasad J., 22.09.2025) in WP No. 6229 of 2025 (GM-RES); NC: 2025:KHC:38140. Petitioners Sagar V Iyer and Suryanarayana Venugopal v. Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Attibele Branch. Challenge to CJM Bengaluru Rural order dated 10.02.2025 in C.Mis.99/2025 under Section 14 SARFAESI directing payment of Rs. 18,96,029.56 re Loan A/c No.04299740000121; e-auction of 20.09.2025 failed for want of bids. Petition disposed with liberty to move under Section 17 SARFAESI; limitation and all other questions left open.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners, subject to all just exceptions, to avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act relying on the turn of events; all questions including limitation left open to be decided in the appropriate proceedings. ¶¶44

Sri. Sagar v Iyer Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, aggrieved by the Section 14 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, must instead avail the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for complete adjudication, with all questions (including limitation) left open.

¶¶39

Court's answer

Because of the turn of events, the petitioners must avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for complete adjudication; accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail that remedy relying on the turn of events.

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

All questions, including the question of limitation, are left open to be decided in the appropriate proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, if the petitioners avail such remedy.

¶¶44

Key takeaways

The petitioners' keenness to settle the loan dispute is open to them, but it is no ground for this Court to pass any orders.obiter¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI Act — Writ petition under Article 226 against order dated 10.02.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District in C.Mis.99/2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, allowing the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Attibele Branch's application in respect of the schedule property (Loan Account No.04299740000121) and directing payment of Rs. 18,96,029.56 — Interim stay of dispossession earlier granted (04.03.2025) conditional on deposit of 20% of dues within eight weeks, with automatic vacatur on default — Application for stay of e-auction scheduled 20.09.2025; auction failed for want of bids — Held, in view of the turn of events, petitioners must avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for complete adjudication; petition disposed of with liberty; petitioners free to settle the loan but that is no ground for orders by the writ court; all questions, including limitation, left open to be decided in the appropriate Section 17 proceedings.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38140 WP No. 6229 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 6229 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. SAGAR V IYER

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

S/O S VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.57,. E-KHATHA NO. 150200100200100908 PROPERTY NO.591/57, BIDARAGUPPE GRAM PANCHAYATH, FORMED IN CONVERTED LAND, IN SY NO.571, SITUATED AT BIDARAGUPPE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI,

¶13

ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶14

SRI SURYANARAYANA VENUGOPAL S/O SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.57,. E-KHATHA NO. 150200100200100908

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:38140 WP No. 6229 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

PROPERTY NO.591/57, BIDARAGUPPE GRAM PANCHAYATH, FORMED IN CONVERTED LAND, IN SY NO.571, SITUATED AT BIDARAGUPPE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR N D., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK, ATTIBELE BRANCH, 728-A LAKSHMI COMPLEX, ATTIBELE, SARJAPURA ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562107

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL., ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10-02-2025 PASSED IN C.MISC. NO.99/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38140 WP No. 6229 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

DISTRICT DIRECTING TO PAY RS. 18,96,029.56 (RUPEES EIGHTEEN LAKHS NINTY SIX THOUSAND TWENTY NINE RUPEES FIFTY SIX PAISA) AND ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE SARFESI ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, IN RESPECT OF LOAN ACCOUNT NO.04299740000121 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2025 in C.Mis.99/2025 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short ' the SARFAESI Act ']. This Court, on 04.03.2025, has granted interim order staying the petitioners' dispossession from the Secured Asset subject to the petitioner depositing

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:38140 WP No. 6229 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

20% of the amount due within eight weeks [from such date] while also providing that if there is any default the interim order granted shall automatically stand vacated.

¶37

Presently, the petitioners have filed an

¶38

application for stay of the e-auction proposed to be held on 20.09.2025. Sri Vikram Unni Rajagopal, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the auction could not be completed on 20.09.2025 for want of bids and the learned counsel also emphasizes that the petitioners have not complied with the interim orders, an assertion which is contested by Sri Vinayakumar N.D., who also submits that the petitioners are keen to settle the loan to save the Secured Asset.

¶39

This Court must observe that the petitioner, because of the turn of events, must avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for complete adjudication. As such, the petition must stand

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38140 WP No. 6229 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

disposed of accordingly and insofar as the petitioners' keenness to settle the dispute it should be open to them, but that could be no reason for any orders by this Court. The question of limitation must be kept open to be considered in the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, if the petitioner avails such remedy. In the light of the afore, the following

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners subject to all just exceptions to avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act relying on the turn of events. All questions [including the question of limitation] are left open to be decided in the appropriate proceedings.

¶45

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶46

NV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 16

Sri. Sagar v. Iyer v the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sagar v. Iyer v the Authorized 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

Mr R Raghavendra Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sri Karthik Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh B D Vs Deputy Conservator of Forest

Mr C N Madhusudan Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

M N Geetha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Durgaparameshwari Temple, Nala Vs the State of Karnataka