Keshava M K Vs the Authorized Officer State Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Keshava M K Vs the Authorized Officer State Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed with conditions: petitioner to vacate the premises within eight weeks and pursue the remedy under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal; permitted to run his business until then without obstructing the Bank's sale; failing compliance, the order to operate as a Section 14 SARFAESI order for eviction. The refund prayers of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.7,25,000/- were not granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought by way of writ of mandamus: reopening of his locked shop and permission to run his printing press, and refund of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.7,25,000/- alleged to have been received by respondent No.2.

Court's answer

The petitioner is directed to vacate the premises within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, and to avail the remedy available under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, i.e., approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Ratio / Principle

Until such vacation, the petitioner is permitted to run his business, as the entire equipment is said to be inside the shop; this permission does not come in the way of the Bank putting up the property for sale.

Key takeaways

The petition stands disposed with the aforesaid conditions; failing compliance, the subject order can be treated as an order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the petitioner got evicted from the shop.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — petitioner, a tenant running a printing press in a shopping complex owned by respondent No.2, sought mandamus directing respondent No.1-Bank to open the lock of his shop and to refund Rs.3,50,000/- received by respondent No.2 under a lease agreement dated 18/03/2024 and Rs.7,25,000/- received under a sale agreement dated 08/07/2013. Counsel for the petitioner submitted he would vacate the premises if eight weeks were granted and filed an affidavit to that effect. Held: the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within an outer limit of eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order and to avail the statutory remedy under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal; till then he was permitted to run his business, without coming in the way of the Bank putting the property up for sale, with an undertaking to cooperate with the sale; on failure of the conditions, the order would be treated as one under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the petitioner evicted. Refund prayers were not granted. Petition disposed accordingly (M. Nagaprasanna, J.).

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14655 WP No. 8291 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8291 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

KESHAVA M.K, S/O LATE M.A. KANAKADAS, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A SPOORTHI NIVAS, PATTALAMMA EXTENSION, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIVEK N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

STATE BANK OF INDIA, MALUR BRANCH, JSS COMPLEX, MALUR, KOLAR - 563 130.

L. LAKSHMI KUMAR, S/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTH. S AGED MAJOR, R/A NO.1881, OLD SBM ROAD, NEHRU EXTENSION, MALUR TOWN, KOLAR - 563 130.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14655 WP No. 8291 of 2025

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO OPEN THE LOCK OF THE PETITIONERS SHOP, i.e. 3RD SHOP FROM THE NORTHERN SIDE IN PROPERTY BEARING MUNICIPAL OLD KATHA NO.1880, NEW KATHA NO.2059, SITUATED AT OLD SBM ROAD, MALUR TOWN, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT AND PERMIT HIM TO RUN HIS PRINTING PRESS BUSINESS AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers.

"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent bank to opern the lock of the petitioner's shop, i.e. 3^rd shop from the Northern side in property bearing Municipal Old Katha No.1880, New katha No.2059, situated at Old SBM Road, Malur Town, Malur, Kolar District and permit him to run his printing press business.

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to refund the lease amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the petitioner which is received by the 2^nd respondent under the lease agreement dated 18/03/2024 vide Annexure C.

c) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent bank to refund the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- to the petitioner which is received by the 2^nd respondent under the sale agreement dated 08/07/2013 and two cheques vide Annexure D and E.

d) Grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to be grant in the facts and

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14655 WP No. 8291 of 2025

circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and Equity."

Heard Shri Vivek N., learned counsel for Shri Rahul

S. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

The petitioner is said to be a tenant in the premises owned by respondent No.2. The premises is a shopping complex in which the petitioner is a tenant in a particular shop, where he runs a printing press.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if eight weeks time is granted, he would vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-Bank. To that effect, he has filed an affidavit, as well.

The affidavit though does not indicate the time in which he would vacate the premises, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to vacate the premises, within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and avail of remedy, as is available under Section 17(4A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14655 WP No. 8291 of 2025

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the SARFAESI Act' for short ) i.e., to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Till such time, the petitioner be permitted to run his business, as the entire equipment is said to be inside the shop. This would not come in the way of the Bank putting up the property for sale.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he would cooperate with the sale of the shop, if notified by the Bank.

In the light of the said submission, the petition stands disposed with the aforesaid conditions, failing which, the subject order can be treated as an order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and get the petitioner evicted from the shop.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

JY CT: BHK