Shoba Bai Vs the Union Bank of India

MOUNA BAI, D/O SHOBA BAI AND LATE KAMENDRA RAO, W/O. MOHAN RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 41/D, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 2 PHASE, NEAR DATTATHREYA TEMPLE, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 010

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. KISHAN G.S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE UNION BANK OF INDIA ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, BENGALURU NORTH, NO. 10/4, 1 FLOOR MITHRA TOWERS, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:15347 WP No. 8753 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI.P.L.VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 02.02.2026 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDIGNS ANNX-D) BEARING NO. ARB/288/SN15/170/25-26 AND DIRECTING THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13 (4) OF THE ARFAESI ACT IS ILLEGAL INVALID AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF MLAW.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶27

prayer:

¶28

"Wherefore the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

¶29

1. Set aside the e-auction sale notice dated 02.02.2026 and all further proceedings (Annexure-D) bearing No.ARB/228/SN15/170/ 25-26.

¶30

ii. Issue an order directing the measures taken by the respondent under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is illegal, invalid and unsustainable in the eye of law.

¶31

III. Grant the costs of this writ petition and grant such other and further reliefs as are just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:15347 WP No. 8753 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits

¶36

that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire amount within a period of four months, if the time is granted.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank submits that auction was conducted, 25% of the amount has

¶38

been paid and now the Auction Purchaser is going to deposit the amount today. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/Bank that earlier also this Court has given an opportunity to the petitioner to redeem the mortgage, but the same was not availed. After the auction is conducted, he cannot come before this Court stating that he is ready to pay the amount.

¶39

Having heard the earned counsels on either side,

¶40

perused the material on record. It is a submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, as the sale certificate is not issued, he may be permitted to deposit the amount. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd and others¹ held that in the light of amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the

¶41

1 (2024) 2 SCC 1

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15347 WP No. 8753 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

borrower will lose the right of redemption and at this stage this Court cannot pass any order. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is some irregularity in conducting the auction. If there is any irregularity, it is always open to the petitioners to question the auction before the DRT and DRT will consider the same in accordance with law. That aspect this Court will not go into as there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46