Writ petition challenging DRAT order upholding sale of auction property at undervalued price dismissed. Court held bank failed to prove borrower consent for price reduction. No infirmity found in DRAT order.
Writ petition dismissed; DRAT order upholding sale order confirmed; pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:26405-DB WP No. 31357 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 31357 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
MR. C.K.HARSHA AGED ABOVE 49 YEARS NO.2265/19, BHARATHI NO.6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 012
…PETITIONER
(BY MS. VINITHRA SRINIVASAN.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2026:KHC:26405-DB WP No. 31357 of 2025
HC-KAR
BELAWADI POST, YELAVALAHOBLI, MYSORE TALUK - 570 180.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.08.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DRAT, CHENNAI IN R.A. No. 133 OF 2013 (ANNEXURE-A) UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE DRT, BENGALURU IN S.A. No. 465/2012 AND THEREBY, UPHOLD THE SALE CONDUCTED BY THE BANK AND THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 29.10.2011 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THIS PETITIONER/AUCTION PURCHASER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
This Writ Petition is filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the auction purchaser assailing the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal1 , Chennai in R.A.No.133/2013 (Annexure-A).
the borrowers. The proceedings contemplated under
the provisions of the Securitisation and
1 the DRAT, for short
2 the DRT, for short
HC-KAR
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20023 was initiated against them, which has ended in auctioning of the property in favor of the petitioner.
3 the SARFAESI Act, for short
HC-KAR
undervalued. With this, the DRT allowed the application filed by the borrowers which was assailed by the Bank before the DRAT.
3.5 The DRAT upon consideration of rival submissions has observed that no valuation report was produced before the DRT. The reserve price was fixed as Rs.70,00,000/-, however in the impugned Sale Notice, the reserve price was fixed as Rs.50,00,000/. The valuation was fixed for both land and the building. The land was valued at Rs.35,00,000/- per acre and the building was valued at Rs.3,20,000/-, totaling to Rs.73,20,000/- as per the valuation of the Bank.
HC-KAR
price fixed at first sale was reduced to
Rs.50,00,000/- in the impugned sale notice after intimation the reduction of price to the borrowers, as
per the contention of the Bank. However, to the query of the DRAT as to why those documents relating to sale of property had not been produced before the DRT, learned counsel for the appellant - Bank submitted that there were no pleadings before the DRT in the SA at all with regard to not sending reply under Section 13(2) notice by the Bank under Section 13(3A), challenge to valuation report, excessive execution by sale of both properties, single bid, etc. However, what was pleaded was only possession and sale notices were not served. As no other grounds were pleaded, there was no occasion for the Bank to produce these documents before the DRT. The DRAT however, on this has observed that
the documents filed along with the application
NC: 2026:KHC:26405-DB WP No. 31357 of 2025
HC-KAR
required to be permitted to be brought on record by allowing the application for additional documents.
3.8 The DRAT, on the settled proposition of law has held that the Secured Creditor is like a trustee holding the property, taking into consideration the welfare of both the secured creditors and the borrowers. Secured creditor should not act like a recovery agent for realization of debt due to it. Every effort should be made to see that the secured asset gets the best price so that the secured creditor recovers its dues and the balance goes to the borrower. Unfortunately, Authorized Officer has not followed this basic and settled principle in determining the market value of the property, reserve price, while selling the property, that is required for realizing the debt.
HC-KAR
observed that, this document will not help the Secured Creditor to prove that the said sale notice was affixed in the secured asset or not. The DRAT further observed, one of the reason for the DRT to allow the application was not proving affixture of sale notice. The Appellant - Bank has miserably failed in this regard. As such, the said document produced would not enure to the benefit of the appellant Bank to come to a conclusion that the appellant has complied with the affixture of sale notice in the secured asset.
4 1965 SCC ONLINE SC 111
NC: 2026:KHC:26405-DB WP No. 31357 of 2025
HC-KAR
"10. But in considering the application of this doctrine to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to bear in mind the other principle that considerations of form cannot over-ride the legitimate considerations of substance. It a plea is not knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication and the parties from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely, in the issues, and evidence has been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is: did the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial and did they lead evidence about it? if it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to rely upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and has had no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce
NC: 2026:KHC:26405-DB WP No. 31357 of 2025
HC-KAR
considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another."
29. It is seen from this judgment that if the parties knew that particular plea involved in the Trial, then, mere fact that that plea was not expressly taken the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle the party from relying upon it, if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. Here, in this case, it is primarily the duty of the bank to ensure that measures have been taken in accordance with law, irrespective of omission to plead any defect in the measures taken. Thus, it is evident, as discussed above, that affixture of sale notice was not proved, valuation of the property was not properly done and undervalued and property was sold in excess."
starts from Paragraph No.18 to 30 of the impugned order, the DRAT dismissed the appeal by the Bank, confirming the order passed by the DRT in SA No.465/2012 dated 21.10.2013. It is this order passed by the DRAT is called in question in this Writ Petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:26405-DB WP No. 31357 of 2025
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:26405-DB WP No. 31357 of 2025
HC-KAR
extract the entire Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 for easy reference, which reads as under:
"9. Time of sale, Issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc .- (1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower:
Provided further that if sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub rule (5) of rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale.
(2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor:
Provided that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-rule (5) of rule 8:
Provided further that if the authorised officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he may,
NC: 2026:KHC:26405-DB WP No. 31357 of 2025
HC-KAR
with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price.
(3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately, i.e. on the same day or not later than next working day, as the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty five per cent. of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again
(4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period 21[as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months].
(5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited [to the secured creditor] and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold.
(6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorised officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to these rules.
(7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any encumbrances, the authorised officer may, if he
NC: 2026:KHC:26405-DB WP No. 31357 of 2025
HC-KAR
thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit with him the money required to discharge the encumbrances and any interest due thereon together with such additional amount that may be sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and interest as may be determined by him.
[Provided that if after meeting the cost of removing encumbrances and contingencies there is any surplus available out of money deposited by the purchaser such surplus shall be paid to the purchaser within fifteen day, from date of finalisation of the sale.]
(8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorised officer [shall] issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with him and take steps to make, the payment accordingly.
(9) The authorised officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-rule (7) above.
(10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shall specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not.
very specific in its language, which says that the sale will not be confirmed if the authorized officer fails to obtain a
HC-KAR
price higher than the reserve price, he may with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price. As contended by Ms.Vinithra Srinivasan, intimation by the Bank to the borrower is more than sufficient to hold the reducing of reserve price from Rs.75,00,000/- to Rs.50,00,000/-. As such in view of the compliance of Rules, there cannot be any exception taken against such sale with reduced reserve price. This argument of learned counsel for the Bank cannot be countenanced as the same is against the proviso itself.
HC-KAR
on the said reduced price with the Bank-Secured Creditor and borrower. There is no such consent finds place in the record. In these circumstances, the contention urged cannot be countenanced. We have perused the entire order passed by the DRAT. We find no infirmity to take any exception with the well reasoned order passed by the DRAT, more especially recorded in Paragraph No.24, which reads as under:
"24. It is a settled proposition of law that secured creditor is like a trustee holding the property, taking into consideration the welfare of both the secured creditor and the borrowers. Secured Creditor should not act like a recovery agent for realization of due debt due to it. Every effort should be made to see that secured asset gets the best price so that the secured creditor recovers its dues and the balance goes to the borrower. Unfortunately, Authorized Officer has not followed this basic and settled principle in determining the market value of the property, reserve price while selling the property, that is required for realizing the debt."
we find no merits in this petition. The Writ Petition sans
merits and is accordingly, dismissed .
NC: 2026:KHC:26405-DB WP No. 31357 of 2025
HC-KAR
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether intimation by the bank constitutes consent of the borrower to reduce the reserve price as required under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
Whether the sale of the property at an undervalued price was conducted in compliance with the SARFAESI Act and Rules.
Whether the impugned order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal requires interference in this writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
RE. BHAGWATI PRASAD VS. CHANDRAMAULReferred¶65
1965 SCC Online SC 111 · Who else cites this
MR. C.K.HARSHA
M/S MAHADESHWARA BRICKS PROPRIETOR MR. MAHADEVA S/O. LATE KARIGOWDA
MR. MAHADEVA
MRS. LAKSHMAMMA
THE KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED
D K SINGH
T.M. NADAF
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
