Disposed¶42

Smt. Divya N, v. Union Bank of India

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026WP/7237/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, single Judge (Lalitha Kanneganti J.), WP No. 7237 of 2026 (GM-DRT), decided 02-04-2026: challenge to Union Bank of India SARFAESI notices dated 21.01.2026 (Annexures D/E/F) and prayer to restrain sale certificate after auction dated 13.02.2026; properties already sold for Rs.86 Lakhs and Rs.1 Crore with Sale Certificate issued; alternative remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal; Article 226 requires exceptional reasons; writ petition disposed of with liberty; pending I.As. closed. Statutes: SARFAESI Act, 2002; Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum; all pending I.As if any, in the petition shall stand closed. ¶42

Smt. Divya N, Vs Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum; all pending I.As if any, in the petition shall stand closed.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Articles 226/227 seeking quashing of SARFAESI notices dated 21.01.2026 and restraint on issuance of sale certificate should be entertained, when remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal are available against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the sale has already taken place.

¶40

Court's answer

Parties aggrieved by proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have their remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

A petitioner coming before this Court under Article 226 must satisfy the Court what exceptional reasons justify its indulgence; the reasons stated by the petitioner were not reasons on which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction, also because the sale had already taken place and the Sale Certificate had been issued.

¶40

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum, and all pending I.As., if any, were directed to stand closed.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-DRT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided on 02-04-2026 by Lalitha Kanneganti, J. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash a notice, a sale notice and the terms and conditions of sale of immovable secured assets, all dated 21.01.2026 in No.OR/UBI/ARB/BNG/983/2025-26 (Annexures D, E and F) issued by respondent-Union Bank of India (earlier Andhra Bank), and a writ of mandamus restraining the Bank from issuing a sale certificate to any person, including the auction purchaser who participated in the auction dated 13.02.2026. Counsel for the Bank stated that one property had already been sold on 13.02.2026 for Rs.86 Lakhs and another for Rs.1 Crore, and that the Sale Certificate had been issued. The Court held that parties aggrieved by proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 have remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and that a petitioner invoking Article 226 must show exceptional reasons for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction; the reasons stated did not qualify, particularly as the sale had already taken place. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum, and pending I.As. were closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18024 WP No. 7237 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 7237 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. DIVYA N, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O SRI. K. NAGARAJU

¶10

SRI. K. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 224 SE, 27^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, NISARGA LAYOUT, B.G. ROAD, JIGANI, BENGALURU -560083.

¶11

&PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A V., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

UNION BANK OF INDIA, (EARLIER ANDHRA BANK) REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, OFICE AT NO.2/3, RAJA BUILDING, N.R. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶16

&RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT.DIVYA PURANDAR., ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:18024 WP No. 7237 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 21.01.2026 IN NO.OR/UBI/ARB/BNG/983/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, QUASH THE SALE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE E, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE SECURED ASSETS DATED 21.01.2026 IN NO.OR/UBI/ARB/BNG/983/2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY RESPONDENT-UNION BANK OF INDIA, 2/3, RAJA BUILDING, N.R.ROAD, BENGALURU-560002, ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 most respectfully prays that this Hon9ble Court be pleased to:-

¶27

(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction, in the nature of a writ, quashing the impugned Notice dated 21.01.2026 in No. OR/ UBI/ ARB/BNG/983/2025-26 vide Annexure-D, quash the sale notice dated 21.01.2026 vide Annexure-E,

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18024 WP No. 7237 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

and the terms and conditions of the sale of immovable secured Assets dated 21.01.2026 in No.OR/UBI/ARB/BNG/983/2025-26 vide AnnexureF issued by Respondent-Union Bank of India, 2/3, Raja Building, N.R.Road, Bengaluru-560002.

¶31

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent-Union Bank of India, 2/3, Raja Building, N.R.Road, Bengaluru-560002 not to issue sale certificate in favour of anybody, muchless in favour of the auction purchaser, who participated in the auction proceedings dated 13.02.2026, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

(c) Pass such other order/s, as the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.=

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶34

submits that the Bank has already sold one of the property for sum of Rs.86 Lakhs and another property for sum of Rs.1 Crore and therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

Respondent/Bank submits that one of the property is already sold on 13.02.2026 for an amount of Rs.86 Lakhs and another property for an amount of Rs.1 Crore and Sale Certificate is also issued.

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18024 WP No. 7237 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Having heard the learned counsels on either sides,

¶40

perused the entire material on record. This Court is of the view that, when any of the parties are aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as SARFAESI Act, for short) t he remedies are available to the parties to go before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. If he is coming before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has to convince this Court what are the exceptional reasons on which he is seeking indulgence of this Court. The reasons that are stated by the petitioner are not the reasons, on which, this Court can exercise the jurisdiction and also the fact that the sale has already taken place and the Sale Certificate has been issued, in that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

¶41

ORDER .

¶42

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of , giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:18024 WP No. 7237 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46