Disposed¶46

Shri.M.Vinod Kumar v. Bank of Maharashtra S

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026WP/27154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (GM-DRT writ) disposes of third-party purchaser's bid for writ ordering Bank of Maharashtra ARB to break SARFAESI seal on his schedule property; court points him to the DRT involving both banks, grants Section 14 Limitation Act 1963 benefit, extends interim no-third-party-rights order (since 10.09.2025) by two months, closes pending I.As; Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, 10-03-2026, WP 27154/2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy (including proceedings before the DRT involving both banks); benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; continuation of the interim order restraining creation of third party rights for two months from receipt of copy of the order; all pending I.A.s, if any, stood closed. ¶46

Shri.M.Vinod Kumar Vs Bank of Maharashtra S — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether a third-party purchaser of a schedule property sealed by the respondent Bank (who is neither borrower nor guarantor) may obtain a writ directing the Bank to break open the seal, or whether he must instead initiate proceedings before the DRT involving both banks.

¶44

Court's answer

Even where the petitioner is a third party aggrieved by measures taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, he has liberty to go before the DRT — making both banks parties — and initiate proceedings there; an effective alternative remedy therefore exists.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of, giving the petitioner liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

¶46

Key takeaways

The petitioner shall have the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.ratio¶51
The interim order restraining creation of third party rights (in force since 10.09.2025) shall continue for a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 27154 of 2025 (GM-DRT), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, sole judge Hon'ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, oral order dated 10 March 2026. Petitioner Shri M. Vinod Kumar, purchaser (2020) of a schedule property sealed by Bank of Maharashtra's Asset Recovery Branch, asserting he was neither borrower nor guarantor (the property having been mortgaged by him to another bank for a loan), sought a writ directing the respondent Bank to break open the seal. The Court held that even a third party aggrieved by measures taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act has liberty to go before the DRT, making both banks parties, and initiate proceedings there; the writ petition was accordingly disposed of with liberty to avail appropriate remedy, the petitioner to have the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The interim order (no creation of third-party rights, in force since 10.09.2025, passed by a co-ordinate bench) was continued for two months from receipt of copy of the order; all pending I.A.s were closed. Counsel: Sri Fazil Ahmed for the petitioner; Smt. Divya Purandar for the respondents.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14501 WP No. 27154 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 27154 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI.M.VINOD KUMAR S/O K.M. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO. 70/17, 2^ND FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR ARCH, BASHETTAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA- 561 203

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. FAZIL AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA’S ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH (ARB), NO.13, PAXAL TOWERS, K.R. ROAD, OPP. TO VANIVILAS HOSPITAL, BENGALURU -560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶15

RASHMEI SHARMA

¶16

D/O IHWAR DUTT GARG AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.502, ASPEN TOWER NEAR COLLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITAL GODREJ WOODSMAN ESTATE HEBBAL, BANGALORE NORH

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:14501 WP No. 27154 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BANGALORE-560 024

¶21

AAYUSH SHARMA S/O AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.4-502, AS PER TOWER NEAR COLLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITAL GODRES WOODSMAN ESTATE HEBBAL BANGALORE-560 024

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT.DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ORDER, DIRECTION, DIRECTING OR ANY WRIT, ORDER, RULE OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT BANK TO BREAK OPEN THE SEAL AFFIXED ON THE PETITIONERS SCHEDULE PROPERTY, WHICH HAS BEEN SEALED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:14501 WP No. 27154 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶32

PRAYER

¶33

“Wherefore, in the light of the aforementioned fact and circumstances, the Petitioner above named most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

¶34

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order, direction, directing or any writ, order, rule or direction, directing the Respondent-Bank to break open the seal affixed on the Petitioner's Schedule Property, which has been sealed by the Respondent Bank

¶35

ii. Such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the purchaser of the property and has purchased the property in the year 2020. It is the case that neither he is a borrower nor a guarantor to the bank. It is submitted that in fact he has obtained the loan from another bank, by mortgaging the property.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank

¶38

submits that this property is mortgaged to the bank in the year

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14501 WP No. 27154 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

2019 and the petition has an effective alternative remedy being a third party also to go before the DRAT. On 10.09.2025, a Co-

¶42

ordinate bench of this Court has passed an interim order directing the respondents not to create any third party rights.

¶43

Notice to the R-2 and R-3 is not served.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. According to the petitioner, he is the third party to the proceedings between R- 1, R-2 and R-3. It is submitted that as such he has come before the Court. Even if he is a third party and he is aggrieved by any of the measures taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, he has always at liberty to go before the DRT as two banks are involved. Making all of them parties, he can initiate the proceedings before the DRT. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving

¶47

liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:14501 WP No. 27154 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

ii. The petitioner shall have the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶52

iii. As there is an interim order not to create any third party rights in force right from 10.09.2025 and the same interim order shall continue for period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order.

¶53

iv. All pending I.A’s if any, in the petition shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶55

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Shri.M.Vinod Kumar v. Bank of Maharashtra S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.M.Vinod Kumar v. Bank of Maharashtra S

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

M.H. Malleshappa Vs the Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Mr. M.D. Mustar Ahmed a Vs the Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

Sri Sathish Hegde Vs the Authorized Officer and Manager Central Bank of India

M/S Fouress Foods Vs the Branch Manager Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Smt. L. Shivamma Vs the City Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S Srinivasa Milk Centre and Provisional Stores Vs M/S Union Bank