Smt Sindhu Vs Mysore and Chamarajanagar District and Co. Operative Central Bank Ltd.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 05.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-C, TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RECEIVE THE OUTSTANDING LOAN AMOUNT AND REGULARIZE THE LOAN ACCOUNT AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:2797 WP No. 37581 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the notice dated 05.11.2025 issued by the respondent as per Annexure-C.

¶31

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

¶32

The petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondent-Society in 2020. The petitioner has promptly repaid the loan EMI’s to the respondent upto February 2021. The petitioner’s husband died on 14.06.2022. The respondent issued the impugned notice to vacate the premise. Hence, this writ petition.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:2797 WP No. 37581 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

¶38

there are serious procedural lapses on the part of the respondent while initiating the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFEASI Act’). He submits that the petitioner has no knowledge or prior intimation about the said proceedings initiated by the respondent. The impugned notice vide Annexure-C suffers from infirmities, and the petitioner undertakes to clear the entire outstanding dues within six months. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶39

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent

¶40

submits that the respondent has filed a petition under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act in Crl.Misc.No.123/2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru. He submits that the said order is appealable under Section 17 of the SARFEASI Act. The petitioner without exhausting the efficacious remedy filed

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:2797 WP No. 37581 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶45

Perused the records, and considered the

¶46

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶47

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondentSociety. The petitioner failed to pay the EMI. The respondent-Bank initiated the proceedings under the SARFEASI Act by issuing a notice and thereafter, filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act in Crl.Misc.No.123/2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru. The learned Civil Judge allowed the petition vide order dated 26.02.2024. Pursuant to the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.123/2023, the respondent-Bank issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:2797 WP No. 37581 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

property. The petitioner without challenging the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.123/2023, filed this petition challenging the notice vide Annexure-C. The order passed in Crl.Misc.No.123/2023 has attained a finality. In view of the same, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition.

¶52

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The writ petition is dismissed .

¶55

ii. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act in Crl.Misc.No.123/2023, if so advised.

¶56

iii. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.

¶57

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶58

SSB

Smt Sindhu v. Mysore and Chamarajanagar District and Co. Operative Central Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sindhu v. Mysore and Chamarajanagar District and Co. Operative Central Bank Ltd.

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

Sri. Fayaz Pasha Vs M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Shreya D Poojari Vs State of Karnataka

G v K Education Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Natraj Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Employees Co. Operative Society Limited Vs Sri. Gowtham Gowda

Smt. Anitha Nanaiah Machangada Vs Canara Bank