Sri Dhanush R Vs the South Indian Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Dhanush R Vs the South Indian Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed on I.A. No.180 of 2025 in O.A. No.795 of 2023 quashed; I.A. No.180 of 2025 restored to its original file; Tribunal directed to reconsider the application and pass an appropriate order based on the documents produced by the parties within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 rejecting I.A. No.180 of 2025 — passed without considering the sale deeds produced by the petitioners to establish ownership and possession of 'C' schedule property — was sustainable, and whether the application required reconsideration by the Tribunal.

Court's answer

The petitioners had produced sale deeds marked as Annexures 'D' and 'J', but the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 without considering those documents.

Ratio / Principle

By recording a finding without looking into the documents produced by the petitioners, the Tribunal recorded a finding contrary to the records.

Key takeaways

In consequence, the application in I.A. No.180 of 2025 requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Dhanush R, Meena R and Raghunath R — impleaded parties in O.A. No.795 of 2023 (South Indian Bank Ltd v. M/s 35 Foline Private Limited and others) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru — challenging the order dated 09.10.2025 rejecting I.A. No.180 of 2025 filed to vacate the interim order of injunction. The Tribunal had rejected the application solely on the ground that the petitioners produced no records of ownership and possession of Schedule 'C' property, although sale deeds marked as Annexures 'D' and 'J' were on record. Held, the Tribunal passed the impugned order without looking into the documents produced, recording a finding contrary to the records; the application therefore required reconsideration. Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed; I.A. No.180 of 2025 restored to file; Tribunal directed to reconsider the application on the basis of the documents produced by the parties and pass appropriate orders within one month of receipt of a copy of the order.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:6237 WP No. 33418 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 33418 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

SRI DHANUSH R S/O SRI. RAGHUNATH R, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.205, 2ND FLOOR, VARSHINI RESIDENCY, SPOORTHI NAGAR, UTTARAHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 061

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. MEENA R, W/O SRI. RAGHUNATH R, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.205, 2ND FLOOR, VARSHINI RESIDENCY, SPOORTHI NAGAR, UTTARAHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 061

SRI. RAGHUNATH R, S/O LATE RAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.205, 2ND FLOOR, VARSHINI RESIDENCY, SPOORTHI NAGAR, UTTARAHALLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 061

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. B C AVINASH., ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6237 WP No. 33418 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 'SIB HOUSE', T.B. ROAD, THRISSUR - 1, KERALA AND ONE OF ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT BANGALORE, AT SIB ARCADE, NO.61, WHEELER ROAD, COX TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005 AND ONE OF ITS BRANCHES AT BANGALORE CHRIST UNIVERSITY CHRIST UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, HOSUR ROAD, DHARMARAM COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE - 560 029, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MR. TOM GEORGE, S/O GEORGE THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

M/S 35 FOLINE PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 (FORMERLY AS VAISHRAVANA AGENCIES AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 3C-910, HRBR LAYOUT, 1^ST BLOCK, KALYANA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043

ALSO AT:

NO.155/10, 36^TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560082 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS MR. SHANTHA SWAROOP K MRS. NIRMALA K MURTHY

MR. KRISHNAMURTHY MANNE NAGARAJ, S/O SRI. M.K. NAGARAJA, NO. 3C-910, HRBR LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, KALYANA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6237 WP No. 33418 of 2025

HC-KAR

MRS. NIRMALA K MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, DIRECTOR OF M/S 35 FOLINE PRIVATE LIMITED, W/O SRI. MR. KRISHNAMURTHY MANNE NAGARAJ, NO. 3C-910, HRBR LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, KALYANA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043

MR. SHANTHA SWAROOP K, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, DIRECTOR OF M/S 35 FOLINE PRIVATE LIMITED, S/O SRI. MR. KRISHNAMURTHY MANNE NAGARAJ, NO. 3C-910, HRBR LAYOUT, 1^ST BLOCK, KALYANA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 180/2025 IN OA NO. 795/2023, BY THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1 BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, BENGALURU WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER IA NO. 180/2025 AFRESH.

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

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

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6237 WP No. 33418 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 09.10.2025 passed on Interlocutory Application No.180 of 2025 in Original Application No.795 of 2023 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Karnataka, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) vide Annexure ‘A’.

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

Respondent No.1-Bank initiated a recovery proceedings against respondent Nos.2 to 5 in O.A. No.795 of 2023. The petitioners filed an application for impleading in the said Original Application. The said application came to be allowed.

The petitioners filed an application in I.A. No.180 of 2025 for vacating the interim order. The said application came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.10.2025 only on the ground that the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6237 WP No. 33418 of 2025

HC-KAR

petitioners have not produced any records with regard to the ownership and possession of Schedule ‘C’ property. Hence, this petition.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have produced several documents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, without considering the said documents has recorded a finding that the petitioners have not produced any records to establish the ownership and possession of ‘C’ schedule property. He submits that the Order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the records. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition, and direct the Tribunal to reconsider I.A. No.180 of 2025.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order. He submits that the

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6237 WP No. 33418 of 2025

HC-KAR

Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, has rightly rejected the application. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and, do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, prays

to dismiss the writ petition.

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

It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1-Bank filed Original Application No.795 of 2023. The petitioners filed an application for impleading and the said application came to be allowed. After being impleaded, the petitioners filed an application for vacating the interim order of injunction in I.A. No.180 of 2025. Although, the petitioners have produced the documents, however, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioners did not produce any documents regarding the ownership and possession of “C” schedule property, except

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6237 WP No. 33418 of 2025

HC-KAR

mentioning in the affidavit. The petitioners have produced the sale deeds marked as Annexures “D” and “J”. Without considering the said documents, the Tribunal has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 09.10.2025. The Tribunal, without looking into the documents produced by the petitioners, has recorded a finding, which is contrary to the records. Hence, the application in I.A. No.180 of 2025 requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed .

(ii) The impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed on Interlocutory Application No.180 of 2025 in Original Application No.795 of 2023 by the Tribunal is hereby quashed .

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6237 WP No. 33418 of 2025

HC-KAR

(iii) I.A. No.180 of 2025 is restored to its original file.

(iv) The Tribunal is directed to reconsider the application in I.A. No.180 of 2025 and pass an appropriate order, based on the documents produced by the parties, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(v) Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

RK

CT:KHV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43