Mrs. Vijayshanthiprakash D @ Vijayshanthi Vs Asset… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mrs. Vijayshanthiprakash D @ Vijayshanthi Vs Asset… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted. The writ petition was disposed of as having rendered infructuous (possession having been handed over to the petitioners on 03.02.2026), with liberty reserved to the petitioners to challenge the Crl.Misc.No.93/2022 order if so advised, liberty reserved to the respondent-Company to recover the loan amount in accordance with law, and pending IA(s) disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 29.01.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.93/2022 is maintainable, given that the petitioners have an equally efficacious remedy of applying under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. +1 more

Court's answer

This writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners have an equal efficacious remedy to challenge the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.93/2022 by filing an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Others.

Ratio / Principle

Since possession of the premises had already been handed over by the respondent to the petitioners on 03.02.2026 (undisputed by petitioners' counsel), the writ petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.93/2022, if so advised.obiter¶42
A liberty is also reserved to the respondent-Company to take steps to recover the loan amount in accordance with law.obiter¶44
In view of disposal of the petition, pending IA(s), if any, stand disposed of.obiter¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) No. 33849 of 2024, decided on 04.02.2026 by the High Court of Karnataka (Ashok S.Kinagi, J.) — The petitioners, widow and son of late G Prakash, filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 29.01.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.93/2022 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District (Annexure-A1), and prayed for directions to resume EMI payments, regularise the housing loan account and secure vacation of the suit schedule premises by respondent Asset Core and Reconstruction Enterprise Limited. During pendency, the respondent handed over possession of the premises to the petitioners on 03.02.2026, which the petitioners' counsel did not dispute. Relying on the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510, the Court held that since the petitioners have an equal efficacious remedy to challenge the Crl.Misc.No.93/2022 order by an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petition was accordingly disposed of as having rendered infructuous, reserving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order if so advised and to the respondent-Company to take steps to recover the loan amount in accordance with law; pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6944 WP No. 33849 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 33849 OF 2024 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

MRS. VIJAYSHANTHIPRAKASH D @ VIJAYSHANTHI W/O LATE G PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 30 1ST CROSS, MEGACITY LAYOUT MARGONDANAHALLI K R PURAM BANGALORE 560036

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

GIRIDHAR P S/O LATE G PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 30 1ST CROSS MEGACITY LAYOUT MARGONDANAHALLI K R PURAM BANGALORE 560036

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MADESH V M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

ASSET CORE AND RECONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE LIMITED, COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER ACT 1956 COMPANIES HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, 13 MOHAN DEV BUILDING

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6944 WP No. 33849 of 2024

HC-KAR

TOLSTOY MARG NEW DELHI 110001116

AND ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, KRISHNA ARCADE BETWEEN 11^TH AND 12^TH CROSS MARGOSA MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560003

BOTH ARE REP. BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER RAHUL WAGHMARE.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD. 29.01.2022 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.93/2022 BY THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (CJM), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNX-A1. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CONTINUE MAKING PAYMENTS UNTIL THE END OF THE TENURE OF THE LOAN BY RESTARTING THE PAYMENT OF EMIS TO THE RESPONDENT FROM TODAY. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REGULARISE HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNT AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE THE LOAN ACCOUNT. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO VACATE THE SUIT SCHEDULE PREMISES AND HANDOVER THE POSSESSION TO THE PETITIONERS.

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6944 WP No. 33849 of 2024

HC-KAR

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 29.01.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.93/2022 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A1 and also sought a direction to the respondent to vacate the suit schedule premises and hand over the possession to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the respondents have handed over the possession of the premises to the petitioners on 03.02.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the same.

As the petitioners have an equal efficacious remedy to challenge the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.93/2022 by filing an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6944 WP No. 33849 of 2024

HC-KAR

proposition of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Others¹ .

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as

having rendered infructuous reserving a liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order passed in

Crl.Misc.No.93/2022, if so advised.

A liberty is also reserved to the respondent-

Company to take steps to recover the loan amount in accordance with law.

In view of disposal of the petition, pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

PA

CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510