Disposed¶51

Mr. Prashanth Machaiah v. Sri Vaasudevan G

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WP/61037/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternate remedy / SARFAESI — Karnataka HC holds effective remedy against a bank's taking of physical possession purportedly under SARFAESI Act, 2002 lies under Section 17 SARFAESI (competent authority), not writ jurisdiction; writ petition disposed with liberty reserved, questions kept open, limitation time exempted; purchasers of apartment vs Corporation Bank, Domlur Layout Branch.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; all questions kept open; time consumed in prosecuting the present petition exempted for the purpose of limitation. No restoration of possession, damages, or costs granted by this Court. ¶51

Mr. Prashanth Machaiah Vs Sri Vaasudevan G — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, aggrieved by respondent No.3-Bank having taken physical possession of the petition schedule property purportedly in exercise of powers under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, can obtain relief in this writ petition under Article 226, or whether his effective remedy lies before the competent authority under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶48

Court's answer

If the possession of the property has been taken by respondent No.3-Bank in purported exercise of power under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the effective remedy to the petitioner who is aggrieved by the same is under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Competent Authority under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, with all questions kept open.

¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Article 226 — High Court of Karnataka (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), order dated 04.02.2026 in WP No. 61037 of 2016: Purchasers of an apartment (through SPA holder) challenged respondent No.3-Bank (Corporation Bank, Domlur Layout Branch) having taken physical possession of the petition schedule property without notice, purportedly in exercise of powers under the SARFAESI Act, 2002; they sought restoration of possession, damages and costs. The Court held that where possession has been taken in purported exercise of power under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the effective remedy of the aggrieved petitioner is under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Reserving liberty to approach the Competent Authority under Section 17, keeping all questions open, the petition was disposed of; time consumed in prosecuting the petition was exempted for the purpose of limitation. Respondents 1 and 2 had been deleted from the array of proceedings vide order dated 22.07.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6425 WP No. 61037 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 61037 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. PRASHANTH MACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE PODANOLANDA MACHAIAH REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER P2

¶10

MRS NEETU MACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2/O MR PRASHANTH MACHAIAH

¶11

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.102 BRIGADE PARKWAY, #2636 2^ND MAIN, V.V. MOHALLA MYSORE - 570 002.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN .,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI VAASUDEVAN G AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O SRI B V GOPINATH

¶17

SRI B V GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SRI VISHWANATH

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:6425 WP No. 61037 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.35/1 2^ND FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ULSOOR BANGALORE-560 008.

¶22

CORPORATION BANK DOMLUR LAYOUT BRANCH NO.294, 7^TH CROSS DOMLUR LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 071 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(V/O DATED 22.07.2025, R1 7 R2 ARE DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PROCEEDINGS;

¶25

BY SRI. V B RAVISHANKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO RESTORE THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE APARTMENT TO THE PETITIONERS FORTHWITH; DIRECT R-3 TO PAY TO THE PETITIONERS THE AMOUNT LOST BY WAY OF DAMAGES.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:6425 WP No. 61037 of 2016

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Petitioner who claimed to have purchased the petition

¶34

schedule property from respondent Nos.1 and 2 in terms of registered deed of sale dated 22.07.2013 is before this Court

¶35

seeking following reliefs:

¶36

''1. Directing the respondent No.3 Bank to restore the physical possession of the Schedule Apartment to the Petitioners forthwith.

¶37

2. Directing the respondent No.3 Bank to pay to the Petitioners the amount lost by way of damages.

¶38

3. Direct the respondent No.3 Bank to pay the costs of this petition.''

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶40

petition schedule property has not been offered as a security against any financial transaction, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in favour of respondent No.3-Bank. He further submits in the absence of petition schedule property, being subject matter of any financial transaction, respondent No.3-Bank without any notice or information to the petitioner has taken physical possession of the property. However, he submits that possession of the property was taken by respondent No.3-Bank purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

¶41

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. Petitioner having no other effective alternate remedy

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:6425 WP No. 61037 of 2016

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

was constrained to approach this Court. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶46

Heard and perused the records.

¶47

As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶48

if the possession of the property has been taken by the respondent No.3-Bank in purported exercise of power under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, effective remedy to the petitioner who is aggrieved by the same is under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶49

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶50

Keeping open all the questions to be urged, petition is

¶51

disposed of .

¶52

Time consumed in prosecuting the present petition, be exempted for the purpose of limitation.

¶53

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

¶54

RL/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Mr. Prashanth Machaiah v. Sri Vaasudevan G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Prashanth Machaiah v. Sri Vaasudevan G

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. Archana. D. Nayak Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Smt. K. Nagarathnamma Vs the Advocate General

Sri. Venkateshwara Rice Tech Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Urban District Athletic Association ( Budaa) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Madesha Vs the Commissioner

The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Vs Sri. K Chinayamurthy