Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

M/S Prash Beverages LLP Vs Canara Bank — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
M/S Prash Beverages LLP Vs Canara BankM/S Prash Beverages LLP v. Canara Bank

Dismissed¶37

M/S Prash Beverages LLP v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2026WP/10639/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 10639 of 2025 (GM-DRT); Justice Jyoti M; decision dated 22 July 2026; CNR KAHC010216902025; NC: 2026:KHC:37632. Petitioners M/s. Prash Beverages LLP and Muthukumaran (counsel Aiyanna K.S. for Uday Kumar H.B.) versus Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Vimanapura Branch. Certiorari sought against demand notice dated 18.01.2025 in RC 486/2024 under Sections 25-28, Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act 1993 and Rule 2, second schedule, Income-Tax Act 1961, arising from Recovery Certificate in O.A.No.819/2017 (DRT Bengaluru); prayer for 6 months' time for one-time settlement of Rs.30 Lakhs refused; writ petition dismissed; no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

The demand notice was issued pursuant to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT); therefore no ground exists warranting interference by the High Court, and the writ petition is dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand notice dated 18.01.2025 issued in RC 486/2024 pursuant to the Recovery Certificate in O.A.No.819/2017 is liable to be quashed by writ of certiorari. +1 more

Court's answer

The demand notice was issued pursuant to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT); therefore no ground exists warranting interference by the High Court, and the writ petition is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

There is no impediment preventing the petitioners from settling the outstanding loan amount with the respondent bank, so no separate direction granting time for a one-time settlement was required.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a partnership firm and its partner seeking (a) certiorari to quash a demand notice dated 18.01.2025 issued by the authorized officer of Canara Bank in RC 486/2024 under Sections 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and Rule 2 of the second schedule to the Income-Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the Recovery Certificate in O.A.No.819/2017 (DRT, Bengaluru), and (b) six months' time to settle the loan through a one-time settlement of Rs.30 Lakhs. Held: the demand notice was issued pursuant to the DRT's order and there is no impediment to the petitioners settling the outstanding loan; no ground exists warranting interference. Writ petition dismissed; interim order, if any, discharged; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. (Jyoti M, J.; 22 July 2026)

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:37632 WP No. 10639 of 2025

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010216902025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 10639 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

M/S. PRASH BEVERAGES LLP., REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.57, 7TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, KALAPPA LAYOUT, BASAVANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560037. (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) REPRESENTED BY MUTHUKUMARAN

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. MUTHUKUMARAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O. SRI. BALA SUBRAMANIAN, REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.57, 7TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, KALAPPA LAYOUT, BASAVANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560037

(BY SRI. AIYANNA K.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. UDAY KUMAR H.B., ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONERS

AND:

CANARA BANK, (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK) VIMANAPURA BRANCH, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, HAL COLONY, BENGALURU-560017 KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER

…RESPONDENT

2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37632 WP No. 10639 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010216902025

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Aiyanna K.S., counsel on behalf of Sri.Uday Kumar H.B., for the petitioners appeared in person.

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(a) To issue writ of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 18.01.2025 sent by the 1^st respondent in RC 486/2024 dispatched on 3/2/2025, under Sections 25 to 28 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and Rule 2 of second schedule to the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in OA 819/2017, as per Annexure-A.

(b) To grant time for 6 months to enable petitioner No.2 to settle the loan of the respondent in the one-time settlement at Rs.30 Lakhs.

(c) Grant any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstance of the case.

3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37632 WP No. 10639 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010216902025

Counsel for the petitioners urged several

contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

It is noted that as per the Recovery Certificate issued in pursuance of the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bengaluru in O.A.No.819/2017, the authorized officer had issued a demand notice on 18.01.2025.

In the present writ petition, the petitioners seek to settle the outstanding loan amount. There is no impediment preventing the petitioners from doing so. Furthermore, the demand notice has been issued pursuant to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). In these circumstances, no ground exists warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37632 WP No. 10639 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010216902025

Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim

order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the demand notice dated 18.01.2025 issued in RC 486/2024 pursuant to the Recovery Certificate in O.A.No.819/2017 is liable to be quashed by writ of certiorari.medium confidence¶27
The court held
The demand notice was issued pursuant to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT); therefore no ground exists warranting interference by the High Court, and the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶37
2.
Whether petitioner No.2 should be granted six months' time to settle the respondent bank's loan through a one-time settlement of Rs.30 Lakhs.medium confidence¶28
The court held
There is no impediment preventing the petitioners from settling the outstanding loan amount with the respondent bank, so no separate direction granting time for a one-time settlement was required.ratio¶37

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226, 227¶22
Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993Sections 25 to 28¶27
Income-Tax Act, 1961Rule 2 of second schedule¶27

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Demand notice dated 18.01.2025 issued by the authorized officer in RC 486/2024 (dispatched 03.02.2025) pursuant to the Recovery Certificate in O.A.No.819/2017, sought to be quashed by writ of certiorari.¶36
Authorized Officer, Canara Bank (pursuant to Recovery Certificate issued by DRT, Bengaluru) · 18.01.2025
Prior proceeding
O.A.No.819/2017 before DRT, Bengaluru was decided by the Presiding Officer and a Recovery Certificate (RC 486/2024) was issued in pursuance of those orders.¶36

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
M/S. Prash Beverages LLP¶10
Aiyanna K.S., Uday Kumar H.B.
petitioner
Sri. Muthukumaran¶12
Aiyanna K.S., Uday Kumar H.B.
respondent
Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Vimanapura Branch¶16

Coram

AI extract

Jyoti Mauthor¶8

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 22 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 5 Apr 2025
Case no.: WP/10639/2025
CNR: KAHC010216902025
Topic: Income Tax
Bench: Jyoti M
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WRIT PETITION (GM-DRT)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Jyoti M

Chinmaya Mission Hospital Employees Association (R) Vs Commissioner of Labour
21 Jul 2026
Sri Praveen Kumar D Vs the Authorised Officer Icici Bank
21 Jul 2026
Sri Ramadoss R Vs the Sub Registrar
21 Jul 2026
Jaidev Vs the Central Silk Board
22 Jul 2026
The General Secretary Vs the Managment of
22 Jul 2026
Mr Kumar N Vs M/S Equitas Small Finance Bank
22 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

M/S Prash Beverages LLP v. Canara Bank, WP/10639/2025 (KA), decided on 22 July 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226, 227
Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993Sections 25 to 28
Income-Tax Act, 1961Rule 2 of second schedule

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Demand notice dated 18.01.2025 issued by the authorized officer in RC 486/2024 (dispatched 03.02.2025) pursuant to the Recovery Certificate in O.A.No.819/2017, sought to be quashed by writ of certiorari.Authorized Officer, Canara Bank (pursuant to Recovery Certificate issued by DRT, Bengaluru) · 18.01.2025
O.A.No.819/2017 before DRT, Bengaluru was decided by the Presiding Officer and a Recovery Certificate (RC 486/2024) was issued in pursuance of those orders.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Jyoti M

Parties & counsel