Mr Jaishankar Sundaram Vs the Branch Manager

MR. JAISHANKAR SUNDARAM, S/O SRI. LATE T.S, SUNDRAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, REP. BY JH PRASANNA KUMAR, PRESENTLY RESIDING ATM B006, AMITY HARMONY APARTMENT, SHASHIDHARA LAYOUT, DWARAKANAGAR, CHANNASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 098.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. J.H. PRASANNA KUMAR, GPA HOLDER AS PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR JAISHANKAR SUNDARAM) AND:

¶15

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK, ASSET MANAGEMENT BRANCH, NO.13/22, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶16

M/S SPARSH INFRA, REP.BY MANISH KOTHARI, MANAGING PARTNER HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.2, 1^ST FLOOR, PATTABHI RAMAIAH STREET, R.V. ROAD, BENGALURU, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:28530-DB WP No. 17345 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER DATED:04.06.2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLANT TRIBUNAL (DRAT) AT CHENNAI IN R.A (S.A) 56/2024, AS BEING ILLEGAL AND JURISDICTIONAL NULLITY (ANNEXURE-A) AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE HON'BLE DRAT, CHENNAI, TO DISPOSE THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS (DAIRY No.504/2026) PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER IN R.A.(S.A) 56/2024 ON MERITS WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 WEEKS AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶26

The present writ petition has been filed by the

¶27

petitioner Mr. Jaishankar Sundaram, borrower of UCO Bank-respondent No.1, through the unregistered General Power of Attorney holder of Mr.J.H.Prasanna Kumar, who is present in person before this Court to argue the writ petition.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28530-DB WP No. 17345 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

2. It appears that Mr.J.H.Prasanna Kumar, has

¶31

entered into an agreement with the borrower in respect of the secured asset after the bank has commenced SARFAESI proceedings against the borrower to recover its dues.

¶32

3. The Bar counsel rules do not permit a Power of Attorney holder to make submissions during the proceedings in as much as the power of attorney holder cannot be an advocate of the person who has executed the power of attorney. He can sign, verify and institute the proceedings on behalf of the power of attorney holder depending on the terms and conditions of the power of attorney holder.

¶33

4. However, we have heard Mr.J.H.Prasanna Kumar in the writ petition. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ('DRAT' for short), Chennai in R.A(S.A):56/2024. This RA has been instituted by the respondent/Bank against the order

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28530-DB WP No. 17345 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Bengaluru dated 29.02.2024 in SA.No.263/2015. Vide interim order dated 04.06.2026 the DRT has directed the parties to maintain status quo .

¶37

5. Mr. Mr.J.H.Prasanna Kumar submits that the order passed by the DRT is without jurisdiction as well as illegal. To support this submission, Mr.J.H.Prasanna Kumar, submits that this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 passed in WP.No.9129/2024 has given liberty to the auction purchaser to approach the DRAT against the order passed by the DRT in SA.No.263/2015. As the auction purchaser has not approached the DRAT in pursuance to the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 in WP.No.9129/2024, the DRAT would lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the Bank.

¶38

6. We find this submission preposterous and to be

¶39

rejected at the outset. The writ petition was filed against the order passed by the DRT by the auction purchaser. The Bank did not challenge the order passed by the DRT

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28530-DB WP No. 17345 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

before this Court. Moreover, the writ petition was disposed

¶43

of with liberty to the auction purchaser to impugn the order of DRT, if he was so advised before the DRAT. If the auction purchaser has not challenged the order, it does not mean that the Bank is not entitled to challenge the order passed by the DRT.

¶44

We find no substance in this writ petition, and we also find that the writ petition is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, we dismiss this writ petition with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to be deposited by the petitioner in the ARMED FORCES BATTLE CASUALTIES WELFARE FUND (AFBCWF) A/C No.90552010165915 CANARA BANK, IFSC CODE:

¶45

CNRB0019055, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶46

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶48

PK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5; ct-vn

Mr Jaishankar Sundaram v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Jaishankar Sundaram v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Revanna Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Chandrashekar Padubidri Vs Competent Authority

Sri Damodara M D Vs Smt. Brunda R

Mr. Jaison P.C. Vs the Deputy Commissioner

State of Karnataka Vs Saphia

Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Canara Bank