Dismissed¶53

Mr Saleem Thangal Kader Palkad v. the Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2026WP/33747/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; Justice Lalitha Kanneganti; WP No. 33747 of 2025 (GM-DRT); Articles 226 and 227; writ of mandamus; Canara Bank; Divisional Manager Arm Branch Manipal Head Office; Chief Manager/Deputy General Manager Town Branch Udupi; petitioner Saleem Thangal Kader Palkad; representation dated 02.09.2025; Annexure-A; bank letter dated 08.09.2025; total contractual liability Rs.59,04,635.13/- as on 31.08.2025; SARFAESI proceedings; SA.No.72/2026; Debt Recovery Tribunal; no representation by petitioner; dismissed as infructuous; I.As. closed; decided 13-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

In the light of the bank's letter dated 08.09.2025, the respondent/bank has already considered the petitioner's representation dated 02.09.2025; hence nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. ¶51

Mr Saleem Thangal Kader Palkad Vs the Divisional… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9028 WP No. 33747 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 33747 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.SALEEM THANGAL KADER PALKAD

¶9

S/O THANGAL KADER PALKAD,

¶10

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶11

RESIDING AT FLAT NO 701,

¶12

HIMALAYA PRESTIGE,

¶13

KUNJIBETTU,

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

UDUPI – 576 101

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

CANARA BANK,

ARM BRANCH

NC: 2026:KHC:9028 WP No. 33747 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

MANIPAL HEAD OFFICE – 576 104

¶26

CHIEF MANAGER /

¶27

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, TOWN BRANCH UDUPI-576 101

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. M. MOHAN RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶31

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED: 02.09.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A WITHIN A TIME BOUND PERIOD.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:9028 WP No. 33747 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶39

prayer:

¶40

“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-

¶41

i.Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.09.2025, produced at Annexure-A, within a time bound period;

¶42

ii. Issue such other writ or writs or pass any such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶43

When this matter came up on 31.01.2026, there

¶44

was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption for “dismissal”. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank has filed the objections and it is submitted that pursuant to the representation dated 02.09.2025, they have responded to the same by letter dated 08.09.2025 informing the petitioner that the total contractual liability as on 31.08.2025 is Rs.59,04,635.13/-. Only upon receipt of the said amount, the

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:9028 WP No. 33747 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

bank will be in a position to examine and consider the request

¶50

for further course of action. It is submitted that the SARFAESI proceedings were initiated by the bank and that was questioned by the petitioner therein before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing SA.No.72/2026.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel for the respondent/bank, perused the material on record. The only relief that is sought in this writ petition is to consider the representation. In the light of the letter dated 08.09.2025, the respondent/bank has already considered the representation. Hence, nothing survives for consideration. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous .

¶54

ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶55

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶56

BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Mr Saleem Thangal Kader Palkad v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Saleem Thangal Kader Palkad v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sujata W/O Sanagappa Yalivala Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sangappa Shivappa Jivogi Vs the State of Karnataka

The Gentlemens Club Gokak Vs the State of Karnataka

Narendra Dubey Vs Vaishali Dubey

Sri Shivashankar B S Vs the Karur Vysya Bank Limited

Kumara Swamy M. C. Vs Bearys Properties & Development Pvt. Ltd.