Disposed¶34

M S Santhosh v. the Mysore Merchants Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026WP/21446/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 21446 of 2017 (GM-RES), Karnataka HC Bengaluru, decided 13-Jul-2026, M.G.S. Kamal J: writ petition (Arts. 226/227) against co-operative bank's recovery notice dt. 10.04.2017 issued in SARFAESI Act 2002 proceedings; outstanding Rs. 69,31,120/- on two accounts; petitioner tendered Rs. 3,00,000 cheque during settlement talks; petition disposed of with liberty to avail statutory remedy under the 2002 Act; 30-day window for condonation of delay; no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under the Securitization Act 2002; time consumed in prosecuting the petition to be considered for condonation of delay if steps are taken within 30 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The prayer to quash the notice was not granted. ¶34

M S Santhosh Vs the Mysore Merchants Co-Operative… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 10.04.2017 issued by respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-E should be quashed. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

In light of the statutory remedy available under the 2002 Act, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under the Act if so advised.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner takes steps within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, the time consumed in prosecuting this petition shall be considered for condonation of delay.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), W.P. No. 21446 of 2017 (GM-RES), decided 13 July 2026 by M.G.S. Kamal J. The petitioner, son of late M.N. Shantharaj, challenged a recovery notice dated 10.04.2017 (Annexure-E) issued by the Mysore Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., respondent No. 1, following its initiation of proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; the petition also sought that the debt liability be fixed on respondents 2 and 3 (siblings/co-borrowers). The bank's memo of calculation placed the total outstanding on two accounts at Rs. 69,31,120/-; the petitioner offered a cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- as bona fides amid ongoing settlement talks. The Court disposed of the petition in light of the statutory remedy under the 2002 Act, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue that remedy if so advised, and directed that if steps are taken within 30 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the time spent prosecuting the petition shall be considered for condonation of delay. No precedent was engaged with; the prayers to quash the notice and reallocate liability were left unaddressed in favour of the statutory track.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35544 WP No. 21446 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 21446 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M.S. SANTHOSH S/O LATE M.N. SHANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO.446/A, BUDDA MARGA, OPP-DFRL, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KIRAN J, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE MYSORE MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., JAGANMOHAN PALACE ROAD, MYSORE - 570 024.

¶15

MS. M.S. ANITHA

¶16

D/O LATE M.N. SHANTHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS C/O M.S. SWAMY COFFEE PLANTER R/A KAMANHALLI VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶17

MS. M.S. SHRUTHI S/O LATE M.N. SHANTHARAJ,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:35544 WP No. 21446 of 2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

W/O PRASHANTH L NO.21, SIDDALINGESWARA NILAYA III CROSS, L.G.HALLI RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE - 94.

¶22

ALSO R/AT MS. M.S. SHRUTHI S/O LATE M.N.SHANTHARAJ, W/O PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.128, BLACK BURN R.O., GIEN WAVER LEX, VICTORIA - 3150 AUSTRALIA

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. N. RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD.10.4.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEX-E. DIRECT THE R-1 TO FIX THE LIABILITY OF DEBT ON R-2 AND 3 AS WELL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed in view of respondent-Co-operative Bank initiating proceedings under the Provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The respondent bank has filed a memo of calculation stating that as on this

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:35544 WP No. 21446 of 2017

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

date, the total outstanding amount due and payable by the petitioner in respect of two accounts is Rs.69,31,120/-.

¶33

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to settle the matter and to show his bona fides he has brought cheque for ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only). He submits that talks for settlement are on and he is hopeful of settling the matter amicably with the respondent. Be that as it may.

¶34

In the light of statutory remedy provided under the Act 2002, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy provided under the Act, if so, advised, this petition is disposed of . If steps are taken within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, time consumed in prosecuting this petition shall be considered for condonation of delay.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶37

SNB

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

M S Santhosh v. the Mysore Merchants Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Santhosh v. the Mysore Merchants Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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

G Ramachar Vs the Commisssioner of Police

Sri G Satish Kumar Vs Andhra Bank

Sri. B. N. Rachegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. T. Sandya Rani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Somashekhara Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivasa G Vs Sri G N Rajkumar