Ms. Malavika Hegde Vs Bank of Baroda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Ms. Malavika Hegde Vs Bank of Baroda — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; order dated 17.09.2025 passed in O.A.No.6 of 2023 rejecting I.A.Nos.49 of 2024 to 51 of 2024 quashed; I.A.Nos.49 to 51 of 2024 restored; tribunal directed to reconsider the applications and pass appropriate orders after assigning detailed reasons; all contentions of the parties kept open; pending IAs disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the DRT on I.A.Nos.49 to 51 of 2024 — disposed of in a single line without considering the grounds raised in the applications or the respondent bank's objections, and therefore non-speaking and of non-application of mind — is liable to be quashed and the applications reconsidered with detailed reasons. +1 more

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, the DRT has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioners in I.A.Nos.49 to 51 of 2024 nor the objections filed by the respondent bank.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order passed by the DRT is a non-speaking order and of non-application of mind; hence the matter requires reconsideration by the tribunal and, only on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the order dated 17.09.2025 on I.A.Nos.49 to 51 of 2024 is quashed, the applications are restored, and the tribunal is directed to reconsider and pass appropriate orders after assigning detailed reasons.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 (GM-DRT) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hon'ble Ashok S. Kinagi, single Judge, order dated 17.02.2026) by four petitioners — Ms. Malavika Hegde, Mr. S. Amarthaya Hegde, Mr. Ishaan Siddhartha and Ms. Vasanthi Hegde, family members/heirs of late V.G. Siddhartha — challenging the order dated 17.09.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai in O.A.No.6 of 2023 (respondent: Bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Chennai) whereby I.A.Nos.49 to 51 of 2024 — seeking striking off/deletion of petitioners Nos.2-4 from the array of parties on the ground of parity with the original borrower (whose name was deleted from the register of company) and that they had not inherited any estate from late V.G. Siddhartha — were disposed of in a single line without reasons. The High Court found that the DRT had not considered the grounds raised in the applications or the objections filed by the bank, and that the impugned order was non-speaking and of non-application of mind. Holding it liable to be quashed solely on that ground, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 17.09.2025, restored I.A.Nos.49 to 51 of 2024, and directed the tribunal to reconsider and pass appropriate orders after assigning detailed reasons; all contentions of the parties were kept open. (Background noted in the order: NCLT, Chennai in IBA No.73 of 2020 approved a resolution plan dated 08.01.2022, amended 11.02.2022; the borrower's I.A.No.76 of 2024 for striking off the borrower had been allowed.)

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 34775 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

BETWEEN:

MS. MALAVIKA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O LATE V.G. SIDDHARTHA, RESIDING AT NO.28, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080. ALSO AT 23/2, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU.

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

MR. S. AMARTHAYA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O LATE V.G. SIDDHARTHA, RESIDING AT NO.28, 3^RD CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080.

MR. ISHAAN SIDDHARTHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE MR. V.G. SIDDHARTHA, RESIDING AT NO.28, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080. ALSO AT 23/2, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU.

MS. VASANTHI HEGDE MOTHER OF LAE MR. V.G. SIDDHARTHA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED,

NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025

2 -

HC-KAR

RESIDING AT NO.28, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080. ALSO AT 23/2, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. G.L. VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARJUN RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BANK OF BARODA STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, 45 MOORE, STREE, JBAS BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, CHENNAI-600 001, THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MR. K. BASKARAN.

HEAD OFFICE AT: BLD.41/2, M.G. RD., YELLAPPA GARDEN, YELLAPPA CHETTY LAYOUT, SIVANCHETTI GARDENS, BANGALORE-560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE (VK NOT FILED))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: (A) SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 17.09.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) OA.NO.6/2023 REJECTING THE IA NO.49/2024, IA NO.50/2024 AND IA NO.51/2024 PASSED BY THE LD. DRT; AND ETC.

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

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

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the

order on IA Nos.49 to 51 of 2024 dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’ for brevity).

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

The respondent filed an original application in OA No. 6 of 2023 on the file of DRT-I, Bangalore. The National Company Law Tribunal (for short ‘NCLT’), Chennai, in IBA No.73 of 2020 passed an order to approve a resolution plan dated 08.01.2022, as amended on 11.02.2022. The petitioners filed their written statement. The petitioners filed IA Nos.49 to 51 of 2024 before the DRT-I, Chennai, for striking off the petitioners No.2 to 4 herein from the array of the parties of the original application on the ground that they have not inherited any estate from late V. G.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025

HC-KAR

Siddhartha. The borrower filed an IA No.76 of 2024 before the learned DRT, Chennai, for striking off the borrower from the array of the parties of the original application stating that no relief is claimed against the borrower in the original application. The said application was allowed. The DRT without assigning any reasons disposed of IA Nos. 49 to 51 of 2024. Hence, the petitioners aggrieved by the order on IA Nos.49 to 51 of 2024, filed this writ petition.

Heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel Sri. G.L.Vishwanath, for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent bank.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein have filed IA Nos. 49 to 51 of 2024 for deleting their names from the array of the parties on the ground of parity in original application. He submits that the DRT, Chennai, without assigning any reasons, has passed an order in a single line stating that the applications are

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025

HC-KAR

disposed of. He submits that the impugned order passed by the DRT, Chennai, is a cryptic order and has not applied its mind while passing the impugned order. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition directing the DRT to reconsider IA Nos. 49 to 51 of 2024 and to pass the appropriate order after assigning the detailed reasons. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal.

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent bank supported the impugned order, and contended that the tribunal has considered the entire record and passed the appropriate orders on the said applications. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

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

It is an undisputed fact that the respondent bank had approached the DRT-I by filing O.A.No.6 of 2023,

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025

HC-KAR

arraying the petitioners as respondents in OA No. 6 of 2023. The petitioners herein filed IA Nos. 49 to 51 of 2024 seeking a prayer to delete their names from the array of the parties on the ground of parity with the original borrower whose name was deleted from the register of company, from the array of the parties.

The petitioners have raised several grounds in the applications, and the respondent has filed objections to the said applications. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the DRT, it is evident that the DRT has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioners in the aforesaid applications and the objections filed by the respondent bank.

The impugned order passed by the DRT is a non-speaking order and of non-application of mind. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration by the tribunal. Hence, only on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10075 WP No. 34775 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed .

ii. Order dated 17.09.2025 passed in O.A.No. 6 of 2023 rejecting I.A.Nos. 49 of 2024 to 51 of 2024 is hereby quashed.

iii. I.A.Nos. 49 of 2024 to 51 of 2024 are restored.

iv. The tribunal is directed to reconsider, and pass the appropriate order on the said applications after assigning the detailed reasons.

v. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

vi. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

SKS