Sri Pradeep Srinivas Gowda, Vs Canara Bank

SRI PRADEEP SRINIVAS GOWDA, C/O SRI. V.M.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, KUNIGAL TALUK, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, RESIDING AT VALEGEREPURA, TUMKUR -572 111.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HONNAPPA S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

CANARA BANK BANGALORE SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH-II, 86, 3^RD FLOOR, SPENCER TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. RANJAN KELKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH, SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 09/01/2026, BEARING REF. 6298/ARM/AUCSALEFOR/2, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:18795 WP No. 3808 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶25

prayer:

¶26

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to;

¶27

1. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash, set aside the impugned notice dated 09.01.2026, bearing Ref:6298/ARM/AUCSALFOR/2, issued by the respondent, vide Annexure-A.

¶28

2. Issue a writ of Mandamus and direct the respondent to refund the petitioner amount of Rs.24,15,750/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty) i.e., 25% of bid amount deposited by the petitioner, which includes EMD of Rs.7,26,300/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Six Thusand Three Hundred) and advance sale consideration of Rs.16,89,450/(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty) and

¶29

3. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the ends of justice of equity.”

¶30

Petitioner had participated in the auction conducted

¶31

by the respondent-Bank on 05.12.2025, he was declared as successful bidder and accordingly, the intimation letter was sent to the petitioner on 05.12.2025 at about 04.00 p.m. The

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:18795 WP No. 3808 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

total bid was Rs.96,63,000/- and the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the bid amount within one working day and balance of amount of Rs.16,89,450/and EMD of Rs.7,26,300/-. Accordingly, as per the mandate, 25% of the bid amount was deposited by the petitioner on 06.12.2025 and in all the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.24,15,750/-. Further, the balance of Rs.72,47,250/- was to be paid by the petitioner within 15 days i.e. on or before 20.12.2025 at the concerned branch of the Bank. When things stood thus, the petitioner has got an unanimous call informing that the property in question has been transacted by the owner on 02.12.2025 itself. Upon verification, the petitioner found that the property was in-fact sold by the borrower in favour of one Narendrababu T L by-way of a sale deed dated 02.12.2025. The petitioner has also applied for the encumbrance of the property and found the transaction of the said date. Immediately petitioner has approached the Bank and informed the Bank about the sale transaction. Though the bank showed the ignorance of the said transaction at that point, it was learnt by the petitioner that in pursuance of the said information, the bank has initiated the criminal proceedings against the

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18795 WP No. 3808 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

borrower and an FIR was also registered in the jurisdictional police station. The petitioner has sought the refund of the amount, but the respondent bank expressed inability to refund the money intimating that there exist Supreme Court guidelines barring refund of EMD amount. The petitioner has addressed two letters dated 16.12.2025 and 20.12.2025 expressing his intention of withdrawing from the bid since the bank is no more in a position to transact or sell the property in his favour due to the transaction that took place on 02.12.2025 and sought for refund of the amount. Petitioner has made detailed representation, but instead of considering his representation, the respondent-Bank issued another notice dated 09.01.2026 which was received by the petitioner on 17.01.2026 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the balance bid amount by 16.01.2026 and in failure of which, the amount already deposited by the petitioner will be forfeited without any notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the auction was scheduled to be held on

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18795 WP No. 3808 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

05.12.2025 and the property was already sold on 02.12.2025

¶43

by the borrower. It is submitted that as on the date of auction itself, third-party rights are accrued. In those circumstances, the petitioner was no more interested to go ahead with the auction process and wanted the amount to be refunded, but the respondent Bank without considering all this, had issued notice that they will forfeit the deposit amount. Learned counsel further submits that when the Bank is conducting the auction and when the property itself is sold even before the date of auction, the petitioner cannot be compelled to complete the auction process and the Supreme Court guidelines with regard to refund of the amount will not come in the way of the Bank in refunding the amount to the petitioner, in peculiar facts and circumstances of this nature. It is submitted that the action of the respondent bank in not returning the amount and also threatening to forfeit the amount is arbitrary and illegal.

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank does not dispute the fact that the property is sold by the borrower. It is submitted that, in fact, they have initiated the criminal proceedings against the borrower for selling the

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:18795 WP No. 3808 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

property. It is submitted that the SARFAESI proceedings were initiated much prior to the sale and after the auction notice is issued, the property is sold. At this stage they cannot return the EMD amount and the petitioner has failed to pay the entire amount, they have issued the notice that the amount will be forfeited. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for refund of the amount.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. In this case the petitioner has participated in the auction. He has become the highest bidder and he had paid an amount of Rs.24,15,750/-. After that he came to know that the borrower has sold the property in favour of a third-party on 02.12.2025. This Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank for the reason that, when there is a dispute even before the property is put to auction, whether it is after the notification or before the auction, they cannot compel the purchaser to buy the property when the third-party rights have accrued. If it was known that the property was already sold and third-party rights had accrued, nobody would come forward to participate in the

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18795 WP No. 3808 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

auction. The submission about returning of the EMD or forfeiting of the EMD is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court is not able to appreciate the same as it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, it is clear that the auction purchaser is entitled for the refund of the amount. Furthermore, in this case, the Bank had gone ahead and put the property to auction and the person in whose favour the borrower had sold the property had participated in the auction and the auction was confirmed in his favour. It is not open for the Bank to say that the petitioner's amount has been forfeited and that he is not entitled for refund of the amount. The Bank cannot compel the petitioner to conclude a transaction where after the auction notification is issued third-party rights are accrued. In the considered opinion of this Court, the concern of the petitioner is genuine and he is entitled for refund of the amount. This Court is passing the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The writ petition is allowed directing the respondent Bank to return the amount paid by the

¶55