Disposed

Padmavathi B v. Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WA/1546/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against dismissal of a Section 14 SARFAESI petition on alternate-remedy grounds. The Division Bench found no infirmity, disposed of the appeal, and directed that if appellants approach the DRT within two weeks it will consider their case uninfluenced by delay; deposits to be credited by the bank.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed: two-week window for DRT remedy without delay bar; bank to credit deposited amounts from date received. Pending application disposed.

Padmavathi B Vs Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:776-DB WA No. 1546 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1546 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PADMAVATHI B W/O LATE CHIKKANNA P AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶11

KISHORE KUMAR C S/O LATE CHIKKANNA P AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.19 2ND MAIN DATTARATREYA NAGAR HOSKERE HALLI BENGALURU 560085

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY DR. SHYAM PRASAD T.S, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

AUTHORISED OFFICER CITY UNION BANK LTD., NO.23/1 17TH CROSS ROAD MC ROAD BEHIND MARUTHI MANDIRA MC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU 560040

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:776-DB WA No. 1546 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

REP BY ITS R SRINIVASAN.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA HEGDE K, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 1.8.2024 IN WP No. 24188/2022 (GM-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶29

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.24188 of 2022 (GM-RES). The appellants have preferred the said petition impugning an order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City in Civil.Misc.No.5802 of 2022. The said petition was filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 [SARFESI Act].

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:776-DB WA No. 1546 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the said writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternate remedy. The operative part of the order is set out below:

¶34

"5. In that view of the matter, petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Petitioner shall initiate such proceedings on or before 30.08.2024. Interim protection granted by this Court is extended for a period of eight weeks.

¶35

In the meanwhile petitioner is at liberty to approach the bank offering amicable resolution in the matter which may be considered in accordance with law."

¶36

We find no infirmity with the said decision. However, since the appellant has not availed of the alternate remedy as directed but has preferred an appeal instead, we consider it apposite to further direct that in the event the appellant avails of its alternate remedy within a period of two weeks from date, the same would be considered by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal uninfluenced by the question of delay.

¶37

We also note that while the present proceedings are pending, status-quo was ordered subject to the appellants

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:776-DB WA No. 1546 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

depositing certain amounts in the Court. It is stated that the appellants have during the pendency of the proceedings deposited certain amounts with the respondent- Bank. In view of the above, we also direct that the respondent-Bank shall give due credit for the amounts received with effect from the date when the amounts were received by it.

¶42

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶43

Pending application is also disposed of.

¶44

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶45

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶46

VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

Padmavathi B v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmavathi B v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Mahalakshmi K.M. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Deepika D Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

National Highways Authority of India Vs Shri.N.Raviraj Shetty

Mrs Anitha Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Ganesh J Raikar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G Rajashekhar Vs State of Karnataka