Dismissed¶35

Mrs Padmaja S v. M/S Canara Bank

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026WP/26800/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC dismisses writ petition challenging Canara Bank notice dated 25.09.2024 Ref No.ROMDY/CHANNAPATNA/24 (Annexure-C) said to be under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act; possession notice cannot be challenged via writ petition under Articles 226/227; writ jurisdiction unavailable for such relief; interim order discharged; GM-DRT; Jyoti M, J.; 08 June 2026; Channapatna/Ramanagara borrowers.

What did the court decide?

Per the settled law of the Apex Court (a catena of decisions), a possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition; accordingly, the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. ¶34

Mrs Padmaja S Vs M/S Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:27206 WP No. 26800 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 26800 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. PADMAJA S., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O LATE DINESH M.C.,

¶9

MR. UMESH M.C., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O M.K.CHEENEGOWDA,

¶10

SMT. SUSHMA K.S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O. MR. UMESH M.C.,

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT NO.1545, PID NO.12-1-505-35C, LAYADA BEEDI, KOTE, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA-562160.

¶13

(BY SRI. V.D.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESHA H.E., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

M/S. CANARA BANK, B.M.ROAD, BENGALURU-526160. REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:27206 WP No. 26800 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Sri.V.D.Siddappa, counsel on behalf of Sri.Ramesha H.E., for the petitioners and Sri.Vignesh Shetty, counsel for the respondent appeared in person.

¶25

The petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶26

(i) Declare that the Notice dated 25.09.2024 Ref No.ROMDY/CHANNAPATNA/24 produced at Annexure-C is illegal and quash the same;

¶27

(ii) Allow this writ petition with costs; and

¶28

(iii) Grant any other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interests of justice.

¶29

Counsel for the petitioners urged several

¶30

contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶31

The petitioners grievance is about the issuance of a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The relief

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27206 WP No. 26800 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has settled the law in a catena of decisions that a possession notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition. The petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶35

Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶36

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶37

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Mrs Padmaja S v. M/S Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Padmaja S v. M/S Canara Bank

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

Hareesha K M, Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Smt L Manjula Vs Sri. N. Sathish.

U Vasulingappa Vs State Bank of India

Vijaya Education Institute Trust Vs Controlling Authority

Sri S Kumar Vs M/S Gemini Distilleries

Sri J Ashok Vs the State Bank of India