Dismissed¶49

Smt K P Poovamma v. the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) – Maintainability

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WP/26110/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenant of premises owned by borrower-defaulting land owner; co-operative bank loan; prayer for mandamus to consider representation dated 09.07.2025 and restraint on coercive action against tenanted schedule property; maintainability of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227; bank free to proceed under SARFAESI Act; remedy under SARFAESI left open; Karnataka High Court (GM-DRT); writ petition dismissed; single judge (Lalitha Kanneganti J.); no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

A writ petition of this nature, with a prayer for mandamus to consider the representation and to restrain coercive action against the tenanted schedule property, is not maintainable before the High Court. ¶42

Smt K P Poovamma Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition by the tenant seeking a mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 09.07.2025 and a direction not to take coercive action against the schedule property is maintainable. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The bank is always at liberty to initiate the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

¶42

Key takeaways

Nothing is forthcoming to show that any SARFAESI proceedings are initiated by the bank; if such proceedings are initiated, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available to him.ratio¶47
A writ of mandamus of this nature is not maintainable and this Court cannot give any such directions.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) - Maintainability - Dismissed. Petitioner, a tenant running a bar and restaurant in the schedule premises, alleged that respondent No.3 (the land owner) had availed a financial facility from respondent No.2 co-operative bank and was deliberately not renewing the loan account, exposing the tenanted property to coercive action; she sought a mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider her representation cum notice dated 09.07.2025 and not to take coercive action against the schedule property without prior notice. Held: (i) it is undisputed that respondent No.3 availed the loan from respondent No.2 bank and is the owner, while the petitioner is only the tenant; (ii) a writ petition of that nature with such a prayer is not maintainable; (iii) the bank is always at liberty to initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, nothing being forthcoming to show that any SARFAESI proceedings were initiated, and if initiated the petitioner may avail the appropriate remedy; (iv) a writ of mandamus of this nature is not maintainable and the Court cannot give such directions. Writ petition dismissed; all I.As. closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10103 WP No. 26110 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 26110 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT K.P.POOVAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O. TM BHEEMAIAH, M/S. TALACAUVERY BAR AND RESTAURANT TALACAUVERY ENTERPRISES R/AT NO.417, SUDARSHAN, 5^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 043

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALSO HAVING BUSINESS ADDRESS AT M/S TALACAUVERY ENTERPRISES NO. 30/1-1 BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, MARUTI SEVANAGARA, BENGALURU -560 033

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI.ASHOTOSH MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VISHNU HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOVT. OF KARNATAKA GNC BANK BUILDING ANNEXE, PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560 018

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10103 WP No. 26110 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE MALLESHWARAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER H.O NO 102, EAST PARK ROAD, 7^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

¶20

B.L BHARATH REDDY S/O B.R.LAKSHMIKANT, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS M/S SLR ENTERPRISES NO. 303, SOVEN APARTMENT, SHAKTINAGAR, HORAMAVU, BANGALORE-560 043

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION CUM NOTICE DATED 09.07.2025 I.E., ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTION TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT NOT TO TAKE ANY COERCIVE ACTIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:10103 WP No. 26110 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶30

prayer:

¶31

“WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court, be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus directing the rspondents no.1 and 2 to consider the representation cum notice dated 09.07.2025 i.e., Annexure-A and issue necessary direction to the 1^st and 2^nd respondent not to take any coercive actions against the petitioner in respect to the schedule property without prior notice to the petitioner and grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity”

¶32

It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is the

¶33

lessee and in possession of the property bearing No.30/1-1, Banaswadi Main road, Maruthiseva nagar, Bangalore including building thereon which is the schedule property and the petitioner has been running the Bar and Restaurant business in the said premises. Respondent No.3 is the land owner of the commercial shop and the same was leased out to the petitioner and he had collected huge amount of Rs.30,00,000/- as refundable security deposit from the petitioner. Respondent No.3 had availed the financial facility from respondent No.2/bank. The petitioner also got information that respondent No.3 deliberately not renewed his loan account with malafide intention. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10103 WP No. 26110 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

paying the EMI’s every month. The petitioner has suggested to respondent No.3 that, there is a need to renew the said loan account immediately which is lying in respondent No.2/bank within 7 days. Respondent No.2/bank has threatened that they will proceed against the tenanted property of the petitioner since respondent No.3 is not coming forward to renew the loan account as required under law. It is stated that it is the duty and legal obligation of respondent No.3 to renew and regularize the said loan account with respondent No.2/bank. If the loan account is not renewed, there are threats of action against the said tenanted property as well as for dispossession of the petitioner from the said property and that will cause lot of hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner had sent a representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and requested not to take any coercive actions against the schedule property and also requested to regularize the loan account and also called upon respondent No.3 to immediately regularize and renew the loan account. That representation was not considered by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:10103 WP No. 26110 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶41

that the petitioner is a tenant, who is in occupation of the property, who is paying the EMIs regularly and if respondent No.2/bank dispossesses the petitioner it would cause lot of hardship to him. When he is regularly paying the EMIs, there is occasion for respondent No.2/bank to dispossess the petitioner. Hence, the representation is given to the bank and there shall be a mandamus directing the respondents to consider and also a direction not to dispossess.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.3 had availed the loan from respondent No.2/bank and respondent No.3 is the owner of the property and the petitioner is the tenant of the said property. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3/owner is not regularizing the loan account and if the bank takes any coercive steps he would be facing the hardship. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, a writ petition of that nature with such a prayer is not maintainable before this Court. The bank is always at liberty to initiate the proceedings

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:10103 WP No. 26110 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

under the SARFAESI Act. Nothing is forthcoming to show that

¶47

any SARFAESI proceedings are initiated by the bank. If the proceedings are initiated, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available to him. A writ of mandamus of this nature is not maintainable and this Court cannot give any such directions. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶50

ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶51

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶52

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt K P Poovamma v. the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K P Poovamma v. the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

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

Mr Saleem Thangal Kader Palkad Vs the Divisional Manager

Narendra Dubey Vs Vaishali Dubey

Sri Shivashankar B S Vs the Karur Vysya Bank Limited

M/S Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

M/S Dreamers and Doers Vs Corporation Bank

Shri Suresh Sebastian D Souza Vs Canara Bank