Allowed¶44

Mohammed Haneef Sait v. the Chief Manager

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026WP/18220/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

wilful defaulter declaration set aside; RBI Master Circular notice requirements; show cause notice service at correct address; acknowledgment of service not produced; presumption of no valid notice; SARFAESI Act Section 13(2) notice; NPA classification 14.11.2016; writ of declaration Articles 226 and 227; Bank of Baroda (earlier Vijaya Bank); liberty to initiate fresh proceedings; Karnataka High Court single judge.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; proceedings dated 05.08.2017 and 04.01.2018 issued by the respondent Bank set aside; respondent Bank at liberty, if so advised, to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law; all I.As. in the petition stand closed. ¶44

Mohammed Haneef Sait Vs the Chief Manager — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:14677 WP No. 18220 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18220 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMED HANEEF SAIT SON OF MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SAIT, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 511, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, NEAR BDA COMPLEX, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 043

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally AND: signed by SUVARNA T THE CHIEF MANAGER Location: HIGH BANK OF BARODA COURT OF (EARLIER VIJAYA BANK), KARNATAKA BILEKAHALLI BRANCH, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHETTY VIGNESH SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:14677 WP No. 18220 of 2023

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TODIRECT OR ORDER TO DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT A WILLFUL DEFAULTER AS PER THE LIST OF WILLFUL DEFAULTERS MAINTAINED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK UPDATED AS ON 31/03/2023, AS PER ANNEXURE-N BEING MADE PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED: 05/08/2017 BEARING NO. REF.CDL/GLVS/WD/4623/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREOF.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The present writ petition is field seeking the following

¶21

prayer:

¶22

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to-

¶23

a) Issue a Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order to declare that the Petitioner is not a Willfull Defaulter as per the order of the respondent Bank dated 05.08.2017 bearing No.Ref:CDL:GLVS:WD:4623:2017 as per Annexure A and further proceedings thereof.

¶24

b) Pass such other order/s as the Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:14677 WP No. 18220 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for

¶29

petitioner that the petitioner had been making timely payment to the respondent/Bank upto December, 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner diagnosed with kidney disease and other problems. On 14.06.2017, the respondent Bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act stating that the account of the petitioner was declared as Non Performing Asset as on 14.11.2016. It is submitted that from the year 2016 until March 2023, the petitioner continued to be under medical treatment, which required him to travel to Kerala for extended periods of time. In response to the notice dated 14.06.2017, issued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, the petitioner on his own, by way of letter dated 21.06.2017 handed over physical possession of the property.

¶30

It is submitted that after the petitioner has recovered, he has ascertained that the respondent Bank is behind his back, declared the petitioner as a Wilful Defaulter, serving a notice at address which the respondent Bank knew that the petitioner was no longer residing vide notice dated 05.08.2017. The petitioner was able to recover the same on visiting his former address subsequent to finding out that the

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14677 WP No. 18220 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

petitioner had been classified as a Wilful Defaulter. Learned counsel submits that as per the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, respondent/Bank has to issue a showcause notice to the appropriate address and they have failed to follow the procedure and has listed the petitioner as Wilful Defaulter. It is stated that the respondents have failed to follow the prescribed procedure as per Clause 3 of the Master Circular. It is submitted that this action of the respondent in declaring the petition as wilful defaulter is contrary to the circular issued by the Reserve Bank from time to time. As such the same needs to be set aside.

¶34

It is submitted that on the last occasion, when the matter came up learned counsel for the respondent is directed to get specific instructions with regard to the notice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that service of notice to the petitioner is not available with the respondent. It is submitted that, they have served the notice and they have followed the procedure as per the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It is submitted that petitioner was declared as wilful defaulter in the year 2017 and the writ petition is filed in the year 2023. As such respondent Bank

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14677 WP No. 18220 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

could not place the acknowledgment, though they have issued the notice to the petitioner.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that as per the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India when the respondent has initiated the proceedings to declare a particular borrower as a wilful defaulter, a notice has to be served on the party, at the address where they are residing. According to the petitioner, no notice is served on his present address. According to the respondent/Bank, they have served the same, however, they could not place the acknowledgment. In that view of the matter, this Court has to presume that there is no valid notice as contemplated under Master Circular. In that view of the matter, the writ petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly this Court is passing the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40