Dismissed¶59

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

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026WP/28703/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition against private bank; Karnataka Bank Ltd.; OTS scheme; Articles 226 and 227; S Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Limited (2025 INSC 117); Gowtham vs. Karnataka Bank Limited; dismissed as not maintainable; liberty to avail appropriate remedy; pending IAs closed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty given to avail the appropriate remedy, and pending IAs were closed. ¶59

M/S Fouress Foods Vs the Branch Manager Karnataka… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14318 WP No. 28703 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 28703 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. FOURESS FOODS,

¶8

SY.NO.17/1, BALALE HOBLI, MOGATA GRAMA, PANCHAYAT, KARWAR, ANKOLA, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT-581 314. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. BHASKAR SHETTY D. (REGISTERD PARTNERSHIP FIRM)

¶9

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. BHASKAR SHETTY D., S/O. LATE SHEENA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT. NO.406, 4^TH FLOOR, GREEN VIEW APARTMENT, UDUPI-MANIPAL ROAD, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576104. (NOT CLAIMED SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT) …PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. ARAVIND. V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14318 WP No. 28703 of 2023

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE BRANCH MANAGER, KARNATAKA BANK LTD., A.V. ARCADE, UDUPI-MANIPAL ROAD, KUNJIBATTU BRANCH,

¶16

UDUPI-576 102.

¶17

CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGMENT BRANCH, III FLOOR, KARNATAKA BANK BUILDING, KODIALBAIL,

¶18

MANGALORE-575 003.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 02.12.23 ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY R1 AS THE PETITIONER HAS SUBMITTED THE PROPOSAL TO SELL THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED IN THE OTS SCHEME AND TO CONSIDER THE OFFICER MADE IN THE LETTER DTD 29.11.23 ANNEXURE-G FOR DISCHARGE OF RS.30 CRORES DEBT ON SALE OF PART OF THE SECURED PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:14318 WP No. 28703 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶27

prayers:

¶28

"a. Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 02.12.2023 Annexure-H passed by first respondent as the petitioner had submitted the proposal to sell the property within the time stipulated in the OTS scheme and to consider the offer made in the letter dated 29.11.2023 Annexure-G for discharge of Rs. 30 crores debt on sale of part of the secured property.

¶29

b. Issue such other Writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

¶30

The writ petition is of the year 2023. The petition is

¶31

filed against the Karnataka Bank Limited, which is a private Bank.

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14318 WP No. 28703 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No.11869/2017 c/w W.P. No.27352/2016 dated 04.03.2020, in the case of Gowtham vs. Karnataka Bank Limited, has held that, the writ petition against the Karnataka Bank is not maintainable.

¶35

In this regard, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Limited ,¹ , the Court in paragraph No.9 has observed as follows:

¶36

“9. We may sum up thus:

¶37

(1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental.

¶38

(2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an

¶39

1 (2025 INSC 117)

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:14318 WP No. 28703 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.

¶44

(3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company.

¶45

(4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty.

¶46

(5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:14318 WP No. 28703 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty.

¶51

(6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body.

¶52

(7) If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action.

¶53

(8) According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, p.682, “a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private

¶54