Ashwini Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34393 WP No. 11569 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 11569 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ASHWINI, W/O. B.V.HEMANTH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. NO.265, 2ND FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH 'A' CROSS, SRINIVASNAGAR BUS STOP, BANK COLONY, BSK I STAGE, BENGALURU-560050.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, MUTTINAKOPPA BRANCH, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577134.

¶16

THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, MUTTINAKOPPA BRANCH, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT- 577134.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:34393 WP No. 11569 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ASHOK KUMAR, MAJOR,

¶21

S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA NAIK, MADABUR VILLAGE, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577134.

¶22

KESHAVA ALIAS SATISH OPP. TO DURGAMBA TEMPLE, MADABUR VILLAGE, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577134.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. HEMANTH R. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.S.RUKKOJI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE FOR R5; R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Sri.K.Sreedhar., counsel for the petitioner,

¶29

Sri.Hemanth R.Rao., counsel on behalf of Sri.H.S.Rukkoji Rao., for caveator/ respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Rajesh.A., counsel for respondent No.5 have appeared in person.

¶30

Though matter is listed today for preliminary

¶31

hearing, it is heard.

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:34393 WP No. 11569 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶36

a) Quash by writ of certiorari the impugned order dated 28/03/2025 on IA No.2152/2024 in SA No.541/2024 vide Annexure-N and also sale notice bearing No.Nil dated 26/4/2022 vide Annexure-E issued by the 2^nd respondent and also order bearing No.REC/ ROCKM/RPN:56/2022-23:SC dated 01/06/2022 vide Annexure-H issued by the second respondent as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶37

b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the request of the petitioner for rescheduling the loan without calculating the interest from the date of NPA of the loan.

¶38

c) Pass such other order as may be deemed just and expedient in the circumstances of the case including the award of the cost of the petition.

¶39

d) For the reason stated supra the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned confirmation order bearing No.REC/ROCKM/:RPN.56/202223.SC dated 1/6/2022 vide Annexure-H, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:34393 WP No. 11569 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

e) Petitioner further prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the sale made in favor of respondent No.5 as per Annexure-E dated:26.04.2022 in respect of schedule property, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶44

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶45

Suffice it to note that the DRT vide order dated:28.03.2025 passed an order on interlocutory application. The law is settled that any person aggrieved by the order of the DRT must file an appeal before DRAT. In the present case, the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy and has invoked the writ jurisdiction. As there is an alternate remedy as contemplated under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to approach DRAT. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34393 WP No. 11569 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The liberty is accorded for the petitioner to file an appeal before the DRAT within four weeks from today and if an application is made by the petitioner for condonation of delay, the DRAT to consider the same in accordance with the law and pass appropriate orders.

¶49

Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner has deposited Demand Draft by filing a memo on 28.06.2025. Counsel further submits that in view of disposal of the writ petition, the Registry concerned may be directed to return the Demand Draft to him.

¶50

Counsel for the respondents submit that they have no objection for the same.

¶51

Taking note of the said submissions made by counsel for the respective parties, the Registry concerned is hereby directed to return the Demand Draft to counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.Sreedhar.

¶52