Disposed¶43

Sri S Sheshalachala Murthy v. the Agm

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/13286/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act Rule 8(6) possession notice; quashing writ under Articles 226 and 227; Canara Bank Marimallappa College Branch Mysore authorized officer auction; alternative statutory remedy doctrine; Karnataka High Court GM-DRT writ disposed; conditional confirmation of auction; 50% deposit of Rs.61,04,715/- claim amount within four weeks; condonation of delay for time consumed in writ petition; pending IAs do not survive.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under the SARFAESI Act within 30 days of receipt of the certified copy of this order; time consumed in the writ petition to be considered for condonation of delay if steps are taken within the stipulated time; pending IAs do not survive. ¶43

Sri S Sheshalachala Murthy Vs the Agm — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose petition arises from proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 under the SARFAESI Act which provide an alternative remedy, should avail that statutory remedy rather than pursue the writ petition challenging the possession notice. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

As the present petition was filed in view of respondent No.1 initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, which provides an alternative remedy, the petitioner is at liberty to avail that remedy within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner takes steps to avail the alternative remedy within the stipulated time, the time consumed in this writ petition will be considered for condonation of delay, with all just exception (as worded in the order).

¶41

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of; consequently, the pending interlocutory applications (IAs), if any, do not survive for consideration.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) No. 13286 of 2024, High Court of Karnataka (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), decided 08-07-2026 - DISPOSED OF. The petitioner sought quashing of a possession notice dated 4-5-2024 issued under Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Act by respondent No.1, Canara Bank, Marimallappa College Branch, Mysore, through its Authorized Officer (Annexure G), the writ being filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By interim order dated 21.05.2025 the Court had allowed the Bank to proceed with the proposed auction of the schedule property, with confirmation of the auction subject to the result of the writ petition, conditioned on the petitioner depositing 50% of the claim amount (i.e., 50% of Rs.61,04,715/-) within four weeks, failing which the Bank could complete the auction process in accordance with law. On the date of the final oral order none appeared for the petitioner, and it remained unclear whether the directed deposit had been made. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to avail the alternative remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act within 30 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order, with the time consumed in the writ petition to be considered for condonation of delay if such steps were taken within the stipulated time; the pending IAs did not survive for consideration.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:34637 WP No. 13286 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 13286 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. S. SHESHALACHALA MURTHY S/O LATE SRINIVAS MURTHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.2984/2B, 4TH MAIN ROAD V V MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 002.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHAN P.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE AGM

¶14

CANARA BANK MARIMALLAPPA COLLEGE BRANCH

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

MYSORE - 570 002 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶17

SRI. RAJASHEKAR

¶18

SAI ABHIJITH S.P S/O SRI. S. SHESHALACHALA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶19

SMT. ASHWINI SHESHALACHALA MURTHY D/O SRI S. SHESHALACHALA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 R/O NO. 2984/2B, 4^TH MAIN ROAD VV MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 002.

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34637 WP No. 13286 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI. PRAKASH S.M S/O S.S. MARKANDAYYA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO. 59, KOMALA TELECOM LAYOUT BHOGADI, FIRST STAGE MYSORE - 560 026.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VIGNESH S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED UNDER RULE 8(6) OF SARFAESI ACT, DATED 4-5-2024 BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE G AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

None appears for the petitioner.

¶30

This Court by order dated 21.05.2025 passed the

¶31

following order:

¶32

"Issue notice to the respondents.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is constrained to move this petition before this Court as there is no sitting before the DRT. He submits that the schedule property is proposed to be auctioned by the respondentBank tomorrow i.e., on 22.05.2024.

¶34

In view of the above submissions and the urgency pleaded, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent-Bank may proceed with the proposed auction of the subject property, however confirmation of auction proceedings shall be subject to result of the writ petition.

¶35

The petitioner in the meanwhile is directed to deposit 50% of the claim amount i.e., 50% of Rs.61,04,715/- within

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34637 WP No. 13286 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

four weeks from today before this Court. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount as directed, the respondent-Bank may further proceed and complete the auction process in accordance with law."

¶39

It is not clear whether the amount as directed has

¶40

been deposited or not.

¶41

Nonetheless, since the present petition being filed in view of the respondent No.1 initiating the proceedings under the SARFAESI act. Since it is alternative effect to remedy provided in the Act, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the same if so advised, within 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. If such steps are taken within the stipulated time, time consumed in this writ petition will be considered for condonation of delay, with all just exception.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending IA's if any does not survive for consideration.

¶44

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶45

SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri S Sheshalachala Murthy v. the Agm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Sheshalachala Murthy v. the Agm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saba Simran Vs Union of India

Sri. D. R. Jayaprakash Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. M Bhaskar Rao Vs Union of India

Smt. H.L. Poornachandra Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Almas Fathima Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Muniyappa Vs the Special Deputy COMMISSIONER-2