Disposed¶46

Sri Kariappa B S v. Union Bank of India

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2026WP/6283/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: One Time Settlement; OTS scheme; representation dated 21.11.2025; mandamus to bank; Articles 226 and 227; Union Bank of India; GM-DRT; writ disposed; four weeks; Rs. 1,35,00,000 paid towards loan account. Karnataka High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti J., 06-03-2026) held that no mandamus lies to compel a bank to grant one time settlement (per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court), but directed Union Bank of India to consider the borrowers' OTS representation dated 21.11.2025 in accordance with law within four weeks; writ petition disposed of, all I.As. closed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent bank directed to consider the petitioners' representation dated 21.11.2025 seeking One Time Settlement in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order; all I.As. in the writ petition stand closed.

Sri Kariappa B S Vs Union Bank of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent bank can be directed by way of mandamus to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 21/11/2025 seeking grant of benefit under the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme.

¶32

Court's answer

In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no mandamus can be issued to the respondent bank to grant one time settlement to the petitioners.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The respondent bank ought to have considered the petitioners' representation dated 21.11.2025 in accordance with law.

¶44

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent bank to consider the representation dated 21.11.2025 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.) disposes of W.P. No. 6283 of 2026 (GM-DRT), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by borrowers Sri. Kariappa B. S., Smt. B. K. Yashoda and M/s. R. K. Bar and Restaurant against Union Bank of India. The petitioners sought a mandamus directing the bank to consider and dispose of their representation dated 21.11.2025 seeking benefit under the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme, and to take into account payments including Rs. 1,35,00,000 already made towards the loan account. Holding that, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no mandamus can issue to a bank to grant one time settlement, but that the bank ought to have considered the representation in accordance with law, the Court disposed of the petition directing the bank to consider the representation dated 21.11.2025 in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; all I.As. closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13741 WP No. 6283 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6283 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KARIAPPA B. S., S/O. B. N. SOMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 17, GROUND FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR SANJAY NAGAR, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560094. AND ALSO ATNO. 15, 60 FEET ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, RMV 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND BLOCK, DOLLARS COLONY, BENGALURU-560016.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. B. K. YASHODA, W/O. KARIAPPA. B. S, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT. NO.17, GROUND FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR SANJAYNAGAR, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶11

AND ALSO ATNO. 15, 60 FEET ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, RMV 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND BLOCK, DOLLARS COLONY, BENGALURU-560 016.

¶12

¶13

NC: 2026:KHC:13741 WP No. 6283 of 2026

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

M/S. R. K. BAR AND RESTAURANT, PROPRIETOR SRI. KARIAPPA. B. S, SURVEY NO.17/C, BLOCK NO. 16, TOURIST LODGE COMPLEX, MANGALORE ROAD, MADIKERE-571 201.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. DEEPAK M., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

UNION BANK OF INDIA (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH) O/AT. NO. 2/3, RAJA BUILDING, N.R. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 21/11/2025, WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE- A, SEEKING A GRANT OF BENEFIT UNDER THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT (OTS) SCHEME, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WITHIN A TIME-BOUND PERIOD ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:13741 WP No. 6283 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶30

prayer:

¶31

"WHEREFORE, the Petitioners most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

¶32

(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent/Bank to consider and dispose of the Petitioners' representation dated 21/11/2025, which is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-A, seeking a grant of benefit under the One Time Settlement(OTS) Scheme, in accordance with law and within a time-bound period;

¶33

(b) Direct the Respondent/Bank to take into consideration the substantial payments already made by the Petitioners, including the sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/paid towards the loan account, while considering the Petitioners' request for One Time Settlement;

¶34

(c) Grant such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶36

submits that the petitioners have approached the respondent/

¶37

bank by giving a representation dated 21.11.2025 seeking one

¶38

time settlement and the said representation was not considered by the respondent/bank.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:13741 WP No. 6283 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/bank

¶43

submits that this writ petition is not maintainable and they cannot seek such relief before this Court.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, there cannot be any mandamus to the respondent/bank to grant one time settlement to the petitioner. However, the petitioners have made a representation to the respondent/bank dated 21.11.2025, the respondent/bank ought to have considered the same in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent/bank to consider the representation dated 21.11.2025 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:13741 WP No. 6283 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶51

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶52

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37