Dismissed¶43

M/S. Palaka Granite Quarry v. the Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2026WP/3662/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act 2002; Section 13; Section 13(4); Section 17; e-auction sale notice dated 21.1.2022; Annexure-C; Union Bank of India Asset Recovery Branch; Authorised Officer; Palaka Granite Quarry; writ petition dismissed; alternative statutory remedy; non-compliance with interim order dated 17.02.2022; 30% payment condition; interim protection rescinded; Karnataka High Court; M.G.S. Kamal J.; WP No. 3662 of 2022 (GM-RES); Articles 226 and 227.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the writ; liberty reserved to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as permissible under law. ¶43

M/S. Palaka Granite Quarry Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:7721 WP No. 3662 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.3662 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. PALAKA GRANITE QUARRY, DOOR NO.9, KATTE BELAGULI, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN CODE-573 211 REP. BY ITS’ PROPRIETOR SRI.PRAVEEN K.

¶10

SRI.PRAVEEN K. S/O K.P.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. H.S. INDIRA, W/O.PRAVEEN K. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

PETITONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO.20, “PALAKA” 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND TENNIS COURT, THINDLU, BENGALURU-560 097.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. KRISHNA B.J., ADVOCATE) (ABSENT)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, ”JEEVAN SAMPIGE (LIC BUILDING)”

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:7721 WP No. 3662 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

1/1, GROUND FLOOR, SAMPIGE ROAD, NEAR MANTRI SQUARE MALL, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI.V.B.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENT U/SEC 13(4) OF THE ACT AS AB INITIO VOID AND ILLEGAL, QUASH THE E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE DTD.21.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT - THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, JEEVAN SAMPIGE (LIC BUILDING 1/1), GROUND FLOOR, SAMPIGE ROAD, NEAR MANTRI SQUARE MALL, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU -560 003 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ALL FURTHER ACTIONS TAKEN IN PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The present petition is filed purportedly aggrieved by initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶29

This Court, by order dated 17^th February, 2022 passed the following:

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7721 WP No. 3662 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

"ORDER

¶33

The scheduled auction shall go on however, the auction shall not be confirmed without the leave of this Court subject to petitioner paying to the respondentBank, 30% of the amount due as under:

¶34

(i) 10% within two weeks;

¶35

(ii) another 10% within next two weeks; and,

¶36

(iii) the remainder i.e., 10% within two weeks next following,

¶37

failing which, not only the interim protection shall stand rescinded but writ petition itself runs the risk of being rejected."

¶38

None appears for petitioners and there is nothing on

¶39

record to show that the aforesaid order has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶40

Notwithstanding the same, since there is an

¶41

alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail

¶42

such remedy as permissible under law, writ petition is

¶43

dismissed.

¶44

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶45

CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

M/S. Palaka Granite Quarry v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Palaka Granite Quarry v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jyothi Basavaraj Mundalamane Vs Sri. Kashinath

Sri.P.Madhav Rao Vs the Karnataka Stae Bar Council

Mr.Prakash Sapaliga Vs M/S Indian Over Seas Bank

Sri Balaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Canadian International School Private Limited Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Smt Pooja Maruthi Vs the Management of