Dismissed¶51

Mohammad Iqbal S/O Syed Adam v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2026WP/101407/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad — WP No.101407/2026 (GM-RES), decided 18.02.2026, Lalitha Kanneganti J — SARFAESI S.14 order and Court Commissioner eviction notice — writ under Articles 226/227 seeking certiorari and mandamus re mortgaged property Sy No.68A/12 vs unmortgaged Sy No.68A/11 — dismissed for suppression of material facts, forum shopping and unclean hands; alternative remedy before DRT (SA No.227/2025 and SA No.648/2024, both dismissed 31.12.2025) already availed; no costs imposed; all IAs closed.

What did the court decide?

Litigants who come to the Court with unclean hands are not entitled to any relief while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226; the petitioners approached the Court by suppressing material facts, including prior orders and DRT proceedings. ¶49

Mohammad Iqbal S/O Syed Adam Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned eviction notice dated 06.02.2026 issued by the Court Commissioner in Ref. Cri.Misc. No.3/2025, CJM Karwar (Annexure-D) is liable to be quashed in certiorari. +2 more

¶33

Ratio / Principle

¶49

Key takeaways

The relief sought in the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner had already availed the alternative remedy before the DRT by filing an SA, which fact was suppressed.ratio¶49
The writ petition is a fit case for dismissal with exemplary costs, as the petitioner indulged in forum shopping and came before the Court with suppression of material facts.ratio¶46
An affidavit tendered only after the facts were brought on record by the respondent Bank cannot establish the petitioner's bonafides.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — petitioners sought certiorari to quash the eviction notice dated 06.02.2026 issued by the Court Commissioner in Ref. Cri.Misc. No.3/2025 (CJM Karwar) and mandamus directing State Bank of India to proceed against Sy No.68A/12 (3.10 guntas, Chitrigi Gram, Kumta) and not Sy No.68A/11, alleged to be petitioner No.2's residential house not mortgaged to the Bank — Bank placed on record prior proceedings: order under S.14 SARFAESI Act questioned in SA No.227/2025 (DRT), dismissed 31.12.2025; SA No.648/2024 against possession notice dated 03.12.2024 under S.13(4) SARFAESI Act, dismissed 31.12.2025; plaint in OS No.8/2026 before Senior Civil Judge, Kumta — HELD: petitioners indulged in forum shopping and suppressed material facts including the DRT proceedings; litigants coming to the Court with unclean hands are not entitled to relief under Article 226; the relief was also not maintainable as the alternative remedy before the DRT had already been availed and suppressed; an affidavit tendered only after the facts were brought on record could not cure the suppression; though exemplary costs were warranted, no costs were imposed considering counsel's submission — writ petition dismissed; all I.As. closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2525 WP No. 101407 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 101407 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMAD IQBAL S/O SYED ADAM, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. NIL,

¶9

GULNAJJABEEN SAYYED W/O MOHANMAD IQBAL, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

¶10

BOTH ARE R/O. NO.D/235, MUSLIM GALLI, KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA- 581343.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SADIQ N GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHIEF MANAGER, AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BENNE COMPLEX, RACC, KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA- 581343.

¶16

POPULAR INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, PLOT NO.C/101, HEGDE INDUSTRIES AREA, HEGDE ROAD, KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA- 581434.

¶17

NAUSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN, PROPRIETOR OF POPULAR INDUSTRIES, NO.263, MUSLIM GALLI, KUMTA,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2525 WP No. 101407 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

UTTARA KANNADA- 581434.

¶21

RAZIYA BEGUM W/O ABDUL KARIMM KHAJI, NO.3B, 150B, KASTUBA NAGAR, CHIPGI SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA- 581434.

¶22

VITTAL N SOMANAKOPPA, ADVOCATE AND COURT COMMISSIONER, KUMTA/KARWAR, F-49, LAXMI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, COURT CIRCLE HUBBALLI- 580023.

¶23

THE POLICE INSPECTOR, KUMTA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA- 581434.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. NANDISH F. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, I) A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED EVICTION NOTICE DATED 06.02.2026 ISSUED BY COURT COMMISSIONER IN REF.CRI.MISC. NO.3/2025 CJM KARWAR VIDE ANNEXURE-D; (II) A WRIT IN A NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT BANK TO PROCEED AGAINST THE PROPERTY BEARING SY NO.68A/12 SITUATED AT CHITRIGI GRAM IN KUMTA, MEASURING 3.10 GUNTAS AND NOT THE SY NO.68A/11 WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BELONGING TO PETITIONER NO.2 WHICH IS NOT MORTGAGED TO THE RESPONDENT BANK; (III) ISSUE SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2525 WP No. 101407 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶32

prayers:

¶33

“(i) A writ in a nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned eviction notice dated 06.02.2026 issued by Court Commissioner in Ref.Cri.Misc. No.3/2025 CJM Karwar vide Annexure-D;

¶34

(ii) A writ in a nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Bank to proceed against the property bearing Sy No.68A/12 situated at Chitrigi Gram in Kumta, measuring 3.10 Guntas and not the Sy No.68A/11 which is a residential house belonging to Petitioner No.2 which is not mortgaged to the Respondent Bank;

¶35

(iii) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶37

submits that the property, which is mentioned in the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.3/2025, is not the property, which is mortgaged and it is submitted that there is no difficulty in taking possession of the property, which is mortgaged. It is further submitted that an undertaking affidavit is filed before this Court stating that if four months’ time is granted, the entire amount would be paid.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2525 WP No. 101407 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

respondent/Bank has placed before this Court, along with a memo, a copy of the plaint in OS No.8/2026 filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Kumta, the order passed in SA No.227/2025, dated 31.12.2025, which was filed questioning the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He has also placed before the Court another order passed in SA No.648/2024 dated 31.12.2025, which was dismissed and the same was filed questioning the possession notice dated 03.12.2024 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank submits that this is nothing but a pure abuse of process of the Court and in fact the petitioner having suffered several orders and having approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, ‘DRT’) on several occasions, has come before this Court questioning the possession notice, which is nothing but suppression of material facts. Further it is submitted that even the submission with regard to mortgage of the property, even that issue cannot be gone into by this Court. As per the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the possession

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2525 WP No. 101407 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

notice is issued. It is submitted that the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is already questioned before the DRT in SA No.227/2025, which came to be dismissed by order dated 31.12.2025. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank submits that this petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable and also for suppression of the material facts.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Before going into the merits of the matter, this is a fit case where the instant writ petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs, as the petitioner is indulged in forum shopping and coming before the Court with suppression of material facts. The petitioner having suffered several orders has failed to disclose the same before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will come up with an affidavit. The affidavit cannot be filed after the facts were brought on record by the respondent/Bank. If there are any bonafides on the part of the petitioner, he would have stated all these in the writ petition. The whole endeavour of the petitioner appears to be to get an order from this Court

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2525 WP No. 101407 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

by suppressing all the material facts. The litigants, who are coming to the Court with unclean hands, are not entitled for any relief from this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, the relief as sought for before this Court is not maintainable. It is to be noticed that even the petitioner had already availed alternative remedy before the DRT by filing SA, which was suppressed by the petitioner. However, in the facts and circumstances, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not imposing costs. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The writ petition is dismissed.

¶52

ii) All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶55

JTR CT:CNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37