M/S Shree Lakshmi Enterprises Vs the Chief Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

M/S Shree Lakshmi Enterprises Vs the Chief Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law (the DRAT remedy sought in the memo), with the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act; all pending IAs in the writ petition closed. The substantive challenge to the DRT orders and the e-auction measures was left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the cited precedents holding that a writ is not maintainable against Karnataka Bank, the petitioner should be permitted to avail the alternative remedy before the DRAT. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy, if any, in accordance with law (i.e., the alternative remedy before the DRAT as sought in the memo).

Ratio / Principle

While pursuing the alternative remedy, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Key takeaways

All pending interlocutory applications in the writ petition stand closed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by M/s Shree Lakshmi Enterprises against officers of Karnataka Bank Ltd. and others, challenging the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru in SA No.409/2020 (dated 02.08.2021) and SA No.8/2021 (dated 03.08.2021) (Annexures H and J) and praying for a declaration that the bank's measures under the e-public auction notice dated 08.12.2020 (auction fixed for 13.01.2021, Annexure-A6) are legally invalid and unsustainable, with a direction to restructure the term loan per the bank's credit policy guidelines letter dated 13.08.2018. When the matter came on for orders, the petitioner's counsel filed a memo invoking the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in SLP(Civil) No.2625-27/2025 and the co-ordinate Bench judgment in WP No.11869/2017 c/w WP No.27352/2016 (dated 04.03.2020), wherein it was held that a writ is not maintainable against Karnataka Bank, and sought liberty to avail the alternative remedy before the DRAT. Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the auction had been completed and the sale certificate issued on 10.12.2022. Taking the memo on record, the Court (Lalitha Kanneganti J.) disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law and entitling the petitioner to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act; all pending IAs were closed. The merits of the challenge to the DRT orders and the auction measures were not adjudicated.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13277 WP No. 112 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO. 112 OF 2022 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

M/S SHREE LAKSHMI ENTERPRISES NO.660/A, 7^TH MAIN, KIADB INDL. AREA, AUTO NAGAR, BELGAGAVI-590 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED, NO.499, KARNATAKA BANK BUILDING, III FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580 029

THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED, MALMARUTHI EXTENSION BRANCH, LIG-90, OPP BRAHMAKUMARI MEDITATION CENTRE, BELAGAVI-590 016

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER MSME SUPPORT MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, MANGALURU-575 002

THE SYNDICATE BANK LEAD DISTRICT OFFICER,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13277 WP No. 112 of 2022

HC-KAR

JNMC CAMPUS, NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAVI-590 010

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, B.K.KANGRAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, P.B. ROAD, BELAGAVI-590 010

SRI HITESH PATEL S/O PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 010

SRI DINESH PATEL S/O PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELGAVI-590 010

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.GANESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI.ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI.A.A.MULAWADMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7 R3 & R4 ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE DEBT. RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU IN SA NO.409/2020 DATED: 02.08.2021 AND THE ORDER MADE IN SA NO.8/2021 DATED: 03.08.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND J AND TO DECLARE AND ORDER THAT THE AFORESAID MEASURES TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER E-PUBLIC AUCTION NOTICE DATED: 08.12.2020, FIXING THE E- PUBLIC AUCTION ON 13.01.2021, UNDER ANNEXRE-A6 TO THE SA NO.8/2021, IS LEGALLY INVALID AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND PRAYS THAT THE SAME MAY BE SET ASIDE BY GIVING DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENT BANK TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS FOR RESTRUCTURING THE TERM LOAN AS PER THE CREDIT POLICY GUIDELINES OF THE RESPONDENT BANK AS PER LETTER DATED: 13.08.2018 ADDRESSED BY THE R-3 TO THE R-2 BANK, AS PER THE LETTER DATED: 13.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-3 TO THE R-2.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13277 WP No. 112 of 2022

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Memo is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) No.2625-27/2025 and in the light of the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.11869/2017 c/w WP.No.27352/2016 dated 04.03.2020 wherein it is held that the writ is not maintainable against the Karnataka Bank, the petitioner may be permitted to avail alternative remedy before the DRAT. The memo is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the auction has been taken place and sale certificate is issued on 10.12.2022.

Accordingly the memo is taken on record and this court is passing the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy if any in

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13277 WP No. 112 of 2022

HC-KAR

accordance with law. However petitioner is entitled for

the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

ii. All pending I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

TS

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10