Dismissed

M/S. Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana Yajamana Industries, v. Union of India

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WP/35389/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two connected writ petitions filed by cashew industry firms challenging NPA declarations and recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that the petitioners failed to exhaust efficacious remedies before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and approached the High Court after a delay exceeding 20 months without sufficient explanation, constituting abuse of

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed as they were filed after exhaustion of alternate remedies and beyond a reasonable period of delay.

M/S. Shri Lakshmi Venkataramana Yajamana… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 35389 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 6780 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

¶9

IN WP No. 35389/2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

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

¶12

M/S. SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA YAJAMANA INDUSTRIES, O/AT NO.1-83/4A, SY. NO.43-2-AP 1, CHENNAITHODY, MAVINAKATTE, VAMADAPADAVU, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 574 324 REP. BY PARTNER

¶13

M/S. VISHNUPRIYA CASHEW INDUSTRIES, O/AT SY.NO.13/8A4, KADABETTU CROSS, KADABETTU VILLAGE, BANTWAL CROSS, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 574 211 REP. BY PARTNER

¶14

M/S. SHRI LAKSHMI VENAKTARAMANA CASHEW RURAL INDUSTRIES, O/AT 2-103, FIRST FLOOR, CHENNAITHODY, MAVINAKATTE P.O, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

KARNATAKA. 574 32 REP. BY PROPRIETOR

¶18

M/S. SHASHANK CASHEW INDUSTRIES, O/AT SY.NO. 79/5, PILATHABETTU, NAINADU P.O, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 574 211. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY T.VARADARAJA PAI, S/O RAGHUNATH PAI T., R/AT 1-83/4, CHENNAITHODY, MAVINAKATTE, VAMADAPADAVU, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 574 324. PETITIONER 1-4 ARE REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. VINAYAK KAMATH K, ADV.)

¶21

AND:

¶22

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3^RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110001.

¶23

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 112, J C ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560002.

¶24

THE GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALURU,

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA-575001

¶28

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER / MANAGER CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH CIRCLE OFFICE, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALURU, KARNATAKA-575 001

¶29

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 112, J C ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560002.

¶30

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER / MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3^RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110001

¶31

THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, KARTAVYA BHAWAN BUILDING 03 KARTAVYA PATH NEW DELHI – 110001

¶32

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEAR A B SHETTY CIRCLE, PANDESHWARA, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575001, KARNATAKA.

¶33

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUNJALKATTE POLICE STATION, PILATHABETTU,

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

BANTWALA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574233, KARNATAKA

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

[BY SRI. HARSHA P BANAD., ADV. FOR R1, R6 & R7 SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R3-R5/BANK (VK NOT FILED) SRI. PRAKASH HEGDE K., ADV. FOR R2]

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE UNLAWFUL NPA DECLARATION OF APRIL 2023 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT AS PER THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.04.2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 5 TO THE PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 4 THE ANNEXURES-A, THE RECOVERY OF DEBTS AND BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1993 AND ALL THAT OR ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS EXCEPT WITHOUT RECOURSE MANDATORY FRAMEWORK FOR MSMES AS PER FRAMEWORK FOR REVIVAL AND REHABILITATION OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES' A GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.05.2015 BY THE MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THE ANNEXURE-D, TO REVIVAL AND MEDIUM FRAMEWORK FOR REHABILITATION OF MICRO, SMALL ENTERPRISES (MSMES) DATED 17.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ANNEXURE-E AND RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK FOR COVID-19 RELATED STRESSFINANCIAL PARAMETERS GUIDELINES DATED 07.09.2020, RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK 2.0- RESOLUTION OF COVID-19 RELATED STRESS OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES AND RESOLUTION (MSMES) DATED 05.05.2021 FRAMEWORK 2.0 RESOLUTION OF COVID -19 RELATED STRESS OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (MSMES)- REVISION IN THE THRESHOLD FOR AGGREGATE EXPOSURE DATED 04.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA TO ALL THE COMMERCIAL BANKS INCLUDING THE RESPONDENTS AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC;

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

IN WP NO. 6780/2025

¶43

BETWEEN:

¶44

M/S. SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA YAJAMANA INDUSTRIES (BORROWER) A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, DOOR NO. 1-83/4A, SY. NO.43-1P1 (P), CHENNAITHODY VILLAGE, MAVINAKATTE, VAMADAPADAVU, BANTWAL TALUKK, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA-574 324.

¶45

MR. T. VARADARAJA PAI. T (GUARANTOR AND MORTGAGOR), MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATARAMANA YAJAMANA INDUSTRIES) AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. SRI. RAGHUNATHPAI.T, DOOR NO. 1-83/4A, SY. NO. 43-1P1(P), CHENNAITHODY VILLAGE, MAVINAKATTE, VAMADAPADAVU, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA-574 324.

¶46

...PETITIONERS

¶47

(BY SRI. RUDRABHUSHAN C B.,ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK ARM BRANCH CIRCLE OFFICE CANARA BANK BUILDING,

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

OPP. ROOPA HOTEL, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALURU, KARNATAKA-575 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, SMT. SHIMNA HARIDAS.

¶53

...RESPONDENT

¶54

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA HEGDE K., ADVOCATE)

¶55

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, BENGALURU IN S.A.NO.41 OF 2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU IN CRL. MISC.NO.285/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-AA.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

ORAL ORDER

¶59

IN WP No.35389/2025:

¶60

The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking the

¶61

following reliefs:

¶62

“a. To issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the unlawful NPA declaration of April 2023 and all subsequent recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act as per the Demand Notice dated

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶64

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

16.04.2024 by the Respondent No. 2 to 5 to the Petitioner No. 1 to 4 the Annexures-A, vide No:ARM:MNGF dated 332 DN:66:2024-24 16/04/2024 The Recovery Of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and all that or any legal proceedings initiated against the Petitioners except without recourse to the mandatory framework for MSME's as per Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises' a Gazette Notification dated 29.05.2015 by The Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India the Annexure-D, Framework Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) dated 17.03.2016 issued by the Reserve Bank of India vide FIDD.MSME and NFS.BC.No for 21/06.2.31/2015-16 Annexure-E and Resolution Framework for COVID-19 related StressFinancial Parameters Guidelines dated 07.09.2020, Resolution Framework 2.0- Resolution of Covid -19 related stress of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) dated 05.05.2021 and Resolution Framework 2.0: Resolution of Covid -19 related stress of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs)- Revision in the threshold for aggregate exposure dated 04.06.2021 issued by the Reserve Bank of India to all the Commercial banks including the Respondents as per Annexure-F. Vide

¶67

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

No. DOR.No BPBC/13/21.04.048/2020-21. dated 07.09.2020

¶70

b. To issue the Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent No. 3 to 5 to accept the Annexure-AE Request Letter dated 26.05.2020 and act in conformity with the law.

¶71

c. To issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Respondent No. 2 to 5 to strictly adhere to all statutory and policy regulations governing the treatment, restructuring, loan moratorium and revival of MSME accounts, including the immediate release of all unjustly withheld financial support and the correction of all malicious credit reporting entries and place the Petitioners financial status and the liabilities as on the 2020 as per Annexure-AE Request Letter dated 26.05.2020.

¶72

d. A Writ of Mandamus ought to be issued, compelling Respondent Nos. 1, 6, and 7 to furnish a No Objection Certificate and a Letter of Confirmation to an MSME borrower's antecedent to the classification of the said borrower as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by any bank or Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC).

¶73

e. A Writ of mandamus not to take possession of the MSMEs properties without the Letter of NOC or

¶74

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Letter of Confirmation from the Respondent Nos. 1, 6 and 7.

¶77

f. To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶78

The petitioners sought urgent assistance from

¶79

the respondents under a request letter dated 26.05.2020. Further, on 18.06.2021 petitioner No.1 submitted a letter of request for the sanction of the working capital restructuring and a moratorium. Petitioner No.2 also submitted a letter of request for identical relief. The respondents denied the crucial requests as per their letter on 23.09.2021. The respondents initiated the recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) since the petitioners committed a default in payment of the amount. On 04.05.2023, the respondents issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners requested the respondents 3 months extension and

¶80

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

proposed to offset fixed deposits. The respondents issued

¶83

a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 01.08.2023. The petitioner filed the securitization application in SA No. 557 of 2023 assailing the possession notice. However the said SA was dismissed as time barred on 28.03.2024. Further, the respondents filed multiple criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The respondents issued a notice to auction the vehicle of petitioner No.2. On 12.02.2024, the public action of the vehicle was held and was recorded online by the RTO. The petitioners filed a Review Application No. 3 of 2024 in SA No. 557 of 2023. The respondents issued a willful defaulter notice against the petitioners. On 12.04.2024 the respondents issued a withdrawal notice of demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. On 16.04.2024 the respondents issued fresh demand notices. The petitioners issued a reply to the demand notices on 03.06.2024. Further, on 07.08.2024 the respondents issued a new possession notice under Section 13(4) of the

¶84

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

SARFAESI Act. Further, the criminal miscellaneous petitions were withdrawn by the respondents. Further, the petitioners filed the securitization application in SA No. 507 of 2024 assailing the possession notice dated 07.08.2024. However, the said securitization application was dismissed on 10.01.2025. The order was issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the Magistrate Court in Crl. Misc. No.285 of 2024. The petitioners again filed the securitization application in SA No.41 of 2025 assailing the order in Crl. Misc. No.285 of 2024. The same came to be dismissed on 28.02.2025. Further, an OA came to be filed by the respondent-Bank, which was allowed on 30.04.2025. Again, the petitioner assailed the OA order in AIR (SA) No.927 of 2025. However, the same came to be dismissed on 29.09.2025 on the ground of pre-deposit non-satisfaction. Hence, this petition.

¶87

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶88

NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶89

12 -

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act are contrary to the framework for revival and rehabilitation of micro, small and medium enterprises i.e., the gazette notification dated 29.05.2015, against the revival framework of MSMEs dated 17.03.2016 and also against the resolution framework for COVID-19. He submits that, the prescribed statutory appellate mechanism under the SARFAESI Act is proven inefficacious and illusory. He submits that, the recovery measures adopted by the respondents were grossly disproportionate and unreasonable when considered against the financial profile of the petitioners. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the petition.

¶92

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the petitioners kept on filing applications after applications and not availed equal efficacious remedy though they were entitled to. He submits that, the

¶93

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

petitioners have intentionally filed these applications and petitions to drag on the recovery proceedings. He submits that, the same amounts to abuse of process of law. He also submits that, there has been a delay in filing the present writ petition. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶96

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

¶97

It is undisputed that the petitioners availed loan from the respondents. The petitioners committed a default in repayment. The respondents initiated the recovery proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

¶98

Further, on 04.05.2023, the respondents issued

¶99

a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondents issued a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner filed the securitization application in SA No. 557 of 2023 assailing the possession notice. However, the said SA was

¶100

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

dismissed as time barred on 28.03.2024. Further, the respondents filed multiple criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The respondents issued a notice to auction the vehicle of petitioner No.2. On 12.02.2024, the public action of the vehicle was held and was recorded online by the RTO. The petitioners filed Review Application No.3 of 2024 in SA No. 557 of 2023. The respondents issued a willfully defaulter notice against the petitioners. On 12.04.2024, the respondents issued a withdrawal notice of demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. On 16.04.2024, the respondents issued fresh demand notices. The petitioners issued a reply to the demand notices on 03.06.2024. Further, on 07.08.2024 the respondents issued a new possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Further, few criminal miscellaneous petitions were withdrawn by the respondents. Further, the petitioners filed the securitization application in SA No. 507 of 2024 assailing the possession notice dated 07.08.2024.

¶103

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

However, the said securitization application was dismissed on 10.01.2025. The order was issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the Magistrate Court in Crl. Misc. No.285 of 2024. The petitioners again filed the securitization application in SA No.41 of 2025 assailing the order in Crl. Misc. No.285 of 2024. The same came to be dismissed on 28.02.2025. Further, OA No.590 of 2024 which came to be filed by the respondent-Bank was allowed on 30.04.2025. Again, the petitioner assailed the OA order in AIR(SA) No.927 of 2025. However, the other AIR(SA) No.264 of 2025 came to be dismissed on 29.09.2025 on the ground of pre-deposit non-satisfaction.

¶106

From the perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioner assailed each step taken by the respondents in the recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of the securitization application. Further, though the petitioner challenged the SA final order in SA No.507 of 2024 in a writ petition in WP No.1468 of 2025, the said writ petition

¶107

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

was disposed of holding that the petitioner did not exhaust

¶110

the equal efficacious remedy.

¶111

Now, it becomes necessary to examine the events chronologically, i.e., securitization application in SA No.557 of 2023 was dismissed on 28.03.2024. The securitization application in SA No.507 of 2024 was dismissed on 10.02.2025. The securitization application in SA No.41 of 2025 was dismissed on 28.02.2025. The original application in OA No. 590 of 2024 was allowed on 30.04.2025.

¶112

However, it is pertinent to note that, the

¶113

present writ petition is filed on 17.11.2025. The petitioner, having knowledge of the aforesaid chronology of events, ought to have taken steps to challenge the orders passed by the DRT before the DRAT. However, the petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the same. Though the petitioner had assailed the order of the DRT in SA No.507 of 2023 before this Court in WP No.1468 of 2025, this Court disposed of the writ petition holding that the

¶114

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

petitioners approached this Court without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy available.

¶117

Further, from the perusal of the aforesaid chronology of events, it also becomes crystal clear that the petitioner has filed applications after applications which results in abuse of process of law. Also, it is pertinent to note that though, the respondents filed the original application in OA No.590 of 2024 and the same was allowed and the petitioners assailed the said order before the Appellate Tribunal in AIR(SA) No.927 of 2025, the petitioner did not comply with the interim order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The other AIR(SA) No.264 of 2025 was dismissed for having not deposited the amount.

¶118

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510 held that, if a remedy is available to a party before the High Court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction should not normally be exercised on a petition under Article 226, for, that would

¶119

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

allow the machinery set up by the concerned statute to be bye-passed. In the light of the aforementioned authority of the Hon’ble Apex court, the petitioner ought to have assailed the orders passed in multiple securitization applications before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶122

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lingeswaran Etc. Vs. Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 disposed of on 25.02.2022, held that when it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone the delay is required to be dismissed, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to condone the delay of 465 days.

¶123

The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and Others in Civil Appeal Nos. 5027 of 2024 disposed of on 18.02.2024, reiterating the aspect of delay and laches would disentitle the discretionary relief being granted, in the case of

¶124

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage

¶125

19 -

¶126

NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

Board and others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in

¶129

(2014) 4 SCC 108 held as follows:

¶130

“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non- suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.

¶131

10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be

¶132

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.”

¶135

Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases referred supra, it becomes clear that the petitioner, despite having efficacious remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, filed this writ petition after the delay of more than 20 months. Also, the petitioner being aware of the order passed by this court in the writ petition in WP No.1468 of 2025, wherein this Court disposed of the same holding that there is a equal efficacious remedy, he did not take any steps to assail the SA order before the DRAT, till filing of the instant petition. Thus, there is a delay of more than 20 months in filing this instant petition.

¶136

21 - NC: 2026:KHC:12290 WP No. 35389 of 2025 C/W WP No. 6780 of 2025

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

In view of the above discussion, the petitioner

¶139

has made out no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The instant petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶140

ORDER

¶141

i. WP No.35389/2025 is dismissed ;

¶142

ii. A liberty is reserved for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, if so desired within 30 days from today;

¶143

ii. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.

¶144

WP No.6780/2025:

¶145

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a

¶146

memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to challenge the impugned order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

¶147