The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank notice under SARFAESI. The court rejected a request for further relief, noting an earlier interim order had been vacated for non-compliance and no justification for interference existed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50003 WP No. 19742 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010453532022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 19742 OF 2022 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 364, BOOMI REDDY LAYOUT, 4th A CROSS, AYYAPPA TEMPLE BACKSIDE NEW THIPPASANDRA BEGNALURU 5600075
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY .B.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50003 WP No. 19742 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010453532022
MANAGER NO.10, 1st FLOOR, INDIAN BANK BUILDINGS, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAIK ASHOK KASHINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE OF INTENDED SALE DATED 13.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK VIDE ANNEXURE-A UNDER RULE 6(2) AND 8(6) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT RULES) 2002 UNDER THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002 IS EXCESSIVE, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND SET ASIDE BY ISSUING THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the
sale notice dated 13.10.2022 issued by the respondent -
Bank under Rule 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement Rules) 2002 under the Securitization and
Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50003 WP No. 19742 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010453532022
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act 2002.
2. Though this Court, having regard to the
authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court holding that this Court ought not to entertain proceedings questioning measures initiated by a secured creditor under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, was not inclined to examine the grievance of the petitioners on merits, a limited interim protection came to be granted subject to certain conditions.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondentBank submits that the petitioners have only partially complied with the conditions stipulated in the interim order dated 29.09.2022. He would further submit that the said
order expressly provided that, in the event of failure on the part of the petitioners to deposit the amount stipulated
Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50003 WP No. 19742 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010453532022
therein, the interim order would stand vacated automatically.
4. It is not in dispute that this Court, by order dated 01.03.2023, recorded the non-compliance of the conditions imposed under the interim order and consequently held that the interim order dated 29.09.2022 stood vacated, while reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek restoration of the interim protection upon complying with the conditions stipulated therein.
5. Today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is stated to be unwell and the learned proxy counsel seeks an accommodation. Having regard to the
fact that the interim order stood vacated as long back as on 01.03.2023 on account of non-compliance, this Court is
not inclined to grant further indulgence merely on the ground of non-availability of the learned counsel on record.
Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50003 WP No. 19742 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010453532022
6. In the absence of compliance with the conditions
imposed by this Court and in view of the interim order having already stood vacated, no further consideration survives in the present proceedings. The petitioners have also not demonstrated any circumstance warranting interference with the measures initiated by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition, being
devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the sale notice under SARFAESI Act should be granted further indulgence after the interim order had already been vacated for non-compliance.
M/S VINAYAKA HANDICRAFTS BY MR. V HARISH
MRS V. POORNIMA
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER THE INDIAN BANK
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR KARNATAKA RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
