Disposed¶55

Sri G R Nagesh v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2026WP/17880/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (NC: 2026:KHC:14880), WP No. 17880 of 2024 (GM-DRT), decided 12-03-2026 by Lalitha Kanneganti, J. Tenant G.R. Nagesh v. State Bank of India (Stressed Assets Management Branch) and Thirumala Rice Industries. Challenge to SARFAESI possession notice dated 22.02.2023 against leased schedule property; unregistered lease; bank's prior charge; earlier interim order directing rent payments to the bank; writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach the DRT; four-week protection from coercive steps; pending IAs closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise appropriate remedy before the DRT; respondents restrained from taking coercive steps for four weeks; all pending IAs closed. ¶55

Sri G R Nagesh Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14880 WP No. 17880 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.17880 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. G.R. NAGESH

¶11

S/O RAMAMURTHY

¶12

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.34, 7TH CROSS ROAD SARASWATHI PURAM BENGALURU NORTH KARNATAKA-560096

¶13

(TENANT IN SCHEDULE PROPERTY)

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. V. MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶19

STRESSED ASSETS MANAGERMENT BRANCH 2ND FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING UHO COMAPUS, NO.65, ST. MARK'S ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:14880 WP No. 17880 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

REP. BY IT AUTHORISED OFFICE/MANAGER (BANKING COMPANY UDNER COMPANIES ACT-LENDER).

¶24

2. THIRUMALA RICE INDUSTRIES

¶25

REP. BY ITS PARTNER T.K.RAMESH BABU S/O LATE G.B.KRISHNAIAH SETTY

¶26

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PLOT NO.5A/2, KIADB INDUSTRIAL ARE LINGAPURA, SIRA ROAD TUMAKURU-572106 (LESSOR OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY) REGISTER PARTNERSHIP (FORM)

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. LAKSHMI K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.S.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON I.A.NO.1/2026)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE R-1 IMPUGNED POSSESSION NOTICE REF NO.SBI/SAMB/SARF/TRI-72B (ANNX-A) DATED.22.02.2023 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY LEASED OUT TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:14880 WP No. 17880 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶37

prayer:

¶38

“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe please;

¶39

i) To quash the 1^st Respondent’s impugned Possession Notice Ref No.SBI/SAMB/SARF/TRI72B (ANNEXURE:A) dated 22/02/2023 in respect of the schedule property leased out to the Petitioner in the interest of justice and equity;

¶40

ii) To pass any such orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances stated above in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶41

According to the petitioner, the borrower has entered into lease agreement with the 2^nd respondent on 23.11.2020 and he has been in possession of the property, as such he has come before the Court questioning the possession notice issued by the Bank. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order on 02.05.2025 observing that:

¶42

“ The petitioner shall not be dispossessed during the pendency of the subject petition, subject to the condition that he would pay the rents that

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:14880 WP No. 17880 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

is to be paid to the 2^nd respondent directly to the bank/respondent No.1.”

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶48

submits that the petitioner is paying the rents. It is further submitted that petitioner may be permitted to avail the appropriate remedy before the DRT.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Bank submits that the Bank has charge over the property before the lease deed. A lease deed is not a registered deed. The petitioner cannot have any right and he cannot stop proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that because of the interim order passed by this Court, petition is pending before the Magistrate for a long time.

¶50

Considering the submissions of both the counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:14880 WP No. 17880 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to raise appropriate remedy before the DRT.

¶56

ii. As there is an interim order, balancing the interest of both the parties for a period of four weeks, respondents shall not take any coercive steps.

¶57

iii. All pending IA’s if any, in the petition shall stand closed.

¶58

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶59

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri G R Nagesh v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G R Nagesh v. State Bank of India

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

Mohammed Haneef Sait Vs the Chief Manager

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Scs and Sts Employees and Officers Association(R) Vs the District Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Smt Pooja B S Vs Union of India

Balakrishna G Vs Punjab National Bank

M/S. Hayati Ventures Vs the State of Karanataka

Sri Rakesh Malli Vs State of Karnataka