Dismissed

Sri D M Ramu v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2026WP/330/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Owners who had executed a registered sale deed as security for a hand-loan challenged the Magistrate's order allowing the Bank's Section 14 SARFAESI application for taking possession. The High Court held no injunction restrained the Bank, the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 before the DRT, and they had not sought cancellation of the sale deed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri D M Ramu Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 330 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI D M RAMU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE.MUNIYAPPA R/A NO.3, (444/2), SUBBANNA LAYOUT, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, T.C.H. COLLEGE, HARINAGARA CROSS, ANJANAPURA POST, KOTHHANURU BENGALURU SOUTH-560062

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI.D.R. SURESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O D.M. RAMU, R/A NO.3, (444/2), SUBBANNA LAYOUT, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, T.C.H. COLLEGE, HARINAGARA CROSS, ANJANAPURA POST, KOTHHANURU BENGALURU SOUTH-560062

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. NAGESH S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE BANK OF INDIA STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.11/90, 3RD FLOOR

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

JC ROAD, BENGALURU-560002 REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER

¶22

SMT. C. VARANANDAMMA 56 YEARS, W/O LATE. KRISHNAIAH, R/A NO.55/3, NEAR D.S.MAX APARTMENT, TULASIPURA MAIN ROAD, GOLLAHALLI, BENGALORE-SOUTH-560108

¶23

SHRUTHI

¶24

40 YEARS, D/O LATE.KRISHNAIAH R/A NO.55/3, NEAR D.S.MAX APARTMENT, TULASIPURA MAIN ROAD, GOLLAHALLI, BENGALORE-SOUTH-560108

¶25

SWETHA 36 YEARS, D/O LATE KRISHNAIAH R/A NO.55/3, NEAR D.S.MAX APARTMENT, TULASIPURA MAIN ROAD, GOLLAHALLI, BENGALORE-SOUTH-560108

¶26

SHARATH

¶27

28 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH R/A NO.55/3, NEAR D.S.MAX APARTMENT, TULASIPURA MAIN ROAD, GOLLAHALLI, BENGALORE-SOUTH-560108

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY ADV. FOR R1; SRI. NANDEESH PATEL ADV.FOR C/R2 – R5)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

A. CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN Crl. Misc. No.5174/2025 ON THE FILE OF 30^TH ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU

¶35

B. SET ASIDE OR QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.30-09-2025 PASSED IN Crl. Misc. No.5174/2025 ON THE FILE OF 30^TH ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU AND DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN Crl. Misc. No.5174/2025 ON THE FILE OF 30^TH ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU,

¶36

C. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS TO COST OF THIS OF THIS SUIT AND OTHER RELIEFS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶37

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶38

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.09.2025 passed in Crl.Misc. No.5174 of 2025 by the learned 30^th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶42

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶43

Petitioner No.1 is the father of petitioner No.2. They are the owners in possession of the property in

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

question. In the month of August-2008, due to some financial problems, the petitioners approached the husband of respondent No.2 and requested to advance a hand-loan of ₹8,00,000/- to clear the loan taken on the schedule property, and to meet their personal financial problems.

¶48

At that time, husband of respondent No.2 Krishnaiah agreed to pay the amount, subject to execution of a registered sale deed in respect of schedule property as a security towards the repayment, and assured to execute a cancellation deed immediately after the repayment of loan amount and a registered sale deed was executed.

¶49

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 has repaid the loan amount of ₹8,00,000/- and ₹1,00,000/- interest to the husband of respondent No.2 on 24.06.2019. On the receipt of the said amount, he has executed an affidavit, swearing that

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

he has received the amount, and executed a notarised cancellation deed of sale.

¶53

After the demise of Krishnaiah, the private respondents i.e., the purchasers seized the documents of the schedule property, and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the property.

¶54

The petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No.6570 of 2018. In that suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an order of temporary injunction against the purchasers. In the said suit, the Bank filed an application to get impleaded as one of the defendants. The said application was opposed by the petitioners. The Trial Court rejected the said application. Thereafter, respondent No.1 Bank initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘ the Act ’) before the ACJM. The said petition came to be allowed by the ACJM vide order dated 30.09.2025.

¶58

The petitioners, aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous case, filed this writ petition.

¶59

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No.6570 of 2018 and the respondent Bank has filed an application for impleading as one of the defendants. The said application came to be rejected. He submits that the respondent Bank by suppressing the pendency of the suit, and rejection of an application for impleadment, filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

He submits that the respondent Bank is guilty of suppression of material facts. Hence, he submits that the order passed by the ACJM under Section 14 of the Act. is arbitrary and erroneous. He submits that the petitioners are not the borrowers. Therefore, the

¶65

respondent Bank cannot initiate recovery proceedings under the Act. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶66

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioners have sold the property in favour of the private respondents. The respondents have obtained the loan from the respondent Bank. They have committed a default, and the respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the Act. He submits that the petitioners have not challenged the registered sale deed executed by them in favour of the borrowers. He submits that until the sale deed is set aside, the petitioners have no locus standi to

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

challenge the order passed under Section 14 of the Act.

¶71

He also submits that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act. The petitioners without exhausting the efficacious remedy filed this writ petition. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶72

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶73

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the husband of respondent No.2, Krishnaiah. Under the registered sale deed, the husband of respondent No.2 obtained a loan from the Bank and created a charge over the said property. The husband of respondent No.2 failed to repay the said loan amount. The respondent Bank initiated recovery

¶74

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

proceedings against respondent No.2 and the husband of respondent No.2 passed away leaving respondent No.2 as his legal heir.

¶77

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the husband of respondent No.2 and the said sale deed is a nominal one, and it was agreed that after repayment of the consideration amount, respondent No.2 shall reconvey the property in favour of the petitioners. The husband of respondent No.2 did not reconvey the property in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No.6570 of 2018 against respondent No.2 for a relief of perpetual injunction. The respondent-bank filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading it as one of the defendants. The petitioners objected to the said application. The said application was rejected by the trial Court.

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Though, the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the respondent's Bank suppressed regarding the pendency of the suit, and obtained an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, from the perusal of the order passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No.6570 of 2018, it is clear that, an injunction has been granted against the borrower, and not against the Bank, and there is no injunction ordered restraining the Bank from initiating any recovery proceedings.

¶82

In the absence of any restraint orders from the Court, there is no legal impediment for the Bank to go on with the recovery proceedings under the Act. The respondent Bank approached the 30^th ACJM and filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act. The said petition came to be allowed by an order dated 30.09.2025. The petitioners did not challenge the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.5174 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

Section 17 of the Act; the petitioners, without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy, have filed this writ petition.

¶87

Further, the petitioners have not filed a suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed executed by them in favour of the husband of respondent No.2. Although the plaintiffs have filed a suit for bare injunction in 2018, till date, the petitioners have not taken any steps for filing a suit for cancellation of the sale deed as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act 1963.

¶88

Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶89

A Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file to seek appropriate relief before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if the law permits.

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:9769 WP No. 330 of 2026

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration

¶94

and are accordingly disposed of.

¶95

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶96

RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri D M Ramu v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri D M Ramu v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K S Narayanaswami Vs the State of Karnataka

The Taluka Agricultural Co. Operative Marketing Society Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Patel Lakshme Gowda, Vs the Chief Secretary

Hdfc Bank Limited Vs Mr. Vijaysimha a R

Smt. v Rathnamma Vs Union Bank of India

Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka