Dismissed

M. Nagaraj v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/27945/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief to quash bank recovery proceedings claiming non-delivery of site by the Development Authority. Court held bank is not privy to the land contract and is entitled to independent recovery of dues regardless of authority's default.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to petitioner; writ petition disposed of subject to observations that bank is entitled to recover dues independently of the site dispute.

M. Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28668 WP No. 27945 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 27945 OF 2023 (CS-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M. NAGARAJ S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.1386 "SUKIRITHI" SOUTH END A MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 074.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETART DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION STATE OF KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28668 WP No. 27945 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA ALI ASKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

¶20

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NORTH DIVISION (NORTH CIRCLE) MARGOSA ROAD MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 055

¶21

M/S TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDHA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LTD REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES ACT 1969 NO.68, BETWEEN 17 AND 18^TH CROSS MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 055 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶22

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020

¶23

RECOVERY OFFICER (Ni.441) AND ASSISTANTS REGISTRAR CO-OPERTIVE SOCIEITIES MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-56005.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 & R7; SRI. AKKI MANJUNATH GOWDA K., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28668 WP No. 27945 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRER RECORDS IN THE MATTER IN SANCTION OF LOAN, ALLOTMENT OF SITE BY PUBLIC AUCTION AND PAYMENT MADE BY THE PETITOINER AND HIS WIFE TOWARDS THE LOAN AMOUNT AND QUASH THE ORDER IN KA.RA.SOW.SM.SA.NI/ SA.SAM.SA.NIVA.A/669/2022-23 AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 27.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.7 AND CONSEQUENTLY, TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW, ARBITRARY, MORE SO THE ACCOUNT OF NON FULFILLMENT OF THE OBLIGATION BY THE 6^TH RESPONDENT BDA AND ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that, he was allotted a site by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) by way of a public auction. The petitioner, to pay the consideration amount, raised loan from respondent no.5-Bank and paid the amount to BDA. However, BDA failed to give possession of the property in favour of the petitioner as the same was under litigation. However, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:28668 WP No. 27945 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

"1. Call for the entire records in the matter in sanction of loan, allotment of site by Public Auction and payment made by the petitioner and his wife towards the loan amount.

¶37

2. To issue Writ of Certiorari and quash the order in No. KA.RA.SOW.SUM/SA.NI/SA.SUM.SA.NIVA.A/669/202223 at ANNEXURE-A Dated 27/06/2023 issued by the respondent No.7 and consequently, to declare that the proceedings initiated are without authority of law, arbitrary, more so the account of non fulfillment of the obligation by the 6^th Respondent BDA.

¶38

3. Issue Writ of Mandamus against Respondent No.6 to transfer the amount of Rs.66,52,800/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred only) in the account of BDA paid towards site value in public auction by the Petitioner along with the interest accrued since 2010, till the date of realization and damages for having caused by the arbitrary decision of the Respondent No.6 BDA

¶39

d. Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶40

It is the case of the Bank that their right is independent

¶41

of whether the site is allotted in favour of the petitioner or not by the BDA. He submits that the petitioner borrowed loan from them which he is liable to repay along with interest as per the agreed terms and conditions. It is further submitted that, if

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28668 WP No. 27945 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

BDA does not put the petitioner in possession of the property as agreed upon, petitioner is always at liberty to sue the BDA in the manner known to law, but that cannot be a ground to thwart the Bank from recovering the dues from the petitioner, which it is legitimately entitled to do so.

¶45

Learned counsel for the BDA upon instructions, submits that, BDA has not committed any mistake and the possession of the site has not been handed over to the petitioner due to his own fault and on the said ground he prays for dismissal of the petition. It is further submitted that, if the petitioner is not desirous of taking the site, BDA is also willing to repay the money to the petitioner.

¶46

The writ petition primarily pertains to the action initiated by the Bank against the petitioner and not with regard to settling the dispute between the petitioner and the BDA. Under the circumstances, it has to be held that Bank is not a privy to the contract between petitioner and BDA and the Bank is entitled to recover the amounts due to it from the petitioner in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions of the contract. The fact whether BDA erred in discharging its duties

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28668 WP No. 27945 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

in favour of the petitioner or not, it does not have any implication upon the rights of the Bank in the instant case. Hence, no remedy can be granted in favour of the petitioner insofar as it relates to the rights of the Bank to recover the loan amount along with due interest from the petitioner. However, this observation will not come in the way of petitioner working out a one time settlement with the Bank, if the law provides for the same.

¶50

Insofar as it relates to the rights of the petitioner with regard to BDA, he is always at liberty to pursue the remedies available to him by way of writ petition or by instituting necessary original suit for recovery of damages, if so advised. This observation will also not come in the way of petitioner and BDA working out their remedies independently.

¶51

The writ petition stands disposed of subject to the aforementioned observations.

¶52

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶53

PGG

M. Nagaraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Nagaraj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shashiraj Vs Teachers Cooperative Society Ltd.

Smt Mahaboob Raziya Vs the Secretary

Subroto Chakraborty Vs State of Karnataka

The Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sri. Srinivasa M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Champa Vs the State of Karnataka