Dismissed¶¶42

Sri P Anand v. the Authorized Officer

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2026WP/15989/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act 2002 Section 13(4) possession notice; writ maintainability; certiorari; Articles 226 and 227; DRT Bengaluru (DRT-1) S.A.No.176/2026; conditional interim order dated 18.03.2026 vacated by order dated 24.04.2026; application dated 17.04.2026 for extension of time not reconsidered; O.S.No.1136/2026 declaration suit Senior Civil Judge Anekal; Authorized Officer ICICI Bank Limited; Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir (2022) 5 SCC 345; writ petition rejected; NC: 2026:KHC:25644; WP No. 15989 of 2026 (GM-DRT); decided 02.06.2026 by Jyoti M, J.

What did the court decide?

A possession notice cannot be questioned by filing a writ petition, as settled by the Apex Court; the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. ¶¶42

Sri P Anand Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25644 WP No. 15989 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 15989 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. P.ANAND, S/O. LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.650, MUNITHIMMAIAH LAYOUT, KUDLU VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560068.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ADINARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ICICI BANK LIMITED, NO.4/10, MYTHREE CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, WEST WING, HOSUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560068.

¶14

SRI. SIDDARTH M., S/O. LATE MANI D., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.24, ESTHRAI BUILDING APARTMENT, HOUSE NO.308, 3RD FLOOR, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560068. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B.S.JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ARJUN R. KHOT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:25644 WP No. 15989 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri.Adinarayana., counsel for the petitioner,

¶23

Sri.B.S.Jeevan Kumar., counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Arjuna R.Khot., counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶24

2. The petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶25

(i) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ order to quash the possession notice issued by the 1^st respondent on dated 20.05.2026, under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act 2002 to the tenants of the petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days from the date of notice and on the strength of the vacating of the conditional interim order dated:18.03.2026 in S.A.No.176/2026 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bengaluru (DRT-1), which are produced at Annexure B & A.

¶26

(ii) Consequentially direct the DRT-11 to re consider the application made on dated 17.04.2026

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:25644 WP No. 15989 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

by the petitioner to extend the time to comply the conditional order in S.A.No.176/2026 which is produced at Annexure-K.

¶31

(iii) Direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property until disposal of the declaration suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.1136/2026 pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Anekal, which is produced at Annexure-F.

¶32

(iv) Grant such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶34

Counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance on the following decision:

¶35

PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VISHWA

¶36

BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR AND OTHERS reported in (2022) 5 SCC 345 .

¶37

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:25644 WP No. 15989 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of the possession notice and also non-consideration of the application made in S.A.No.176/2026.

¶42

The relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in catena of decisions that the possession notice cannot be questioned by filing a writ petition. Furthermore, the interim order granted by the DRT has been vacated by virtue of an order dated 24.04.2026. The petitioner has not questioned the said order. As already noted above, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected .

¶43

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶44

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri P Anand v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Anand v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shineyu Engineering Technologies Private Limited Vs M/S Canara Bank

Smt. Ratnamma Vs Canfin Homes Limited

The Divisional Controller Vs Prabhakar S. Myadagoppa

Sri Ateeq Sheik Mohammed Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Mrs. S Gayathri Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Sri. Jaffer Ali, Vs the Authorised Officer