- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10617 WP No. 911 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 911 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. B.S. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. SRI. SHAMBULINGAPPA. NO.59, 60 AND 61 'OM SHREE GURU BHAVANA', J.P. NAGAR, LAST STOP, MAHADEVAPURA, MYSORE - 570 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.S. RAJESH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER BANK OF INDIA MYSORE BRANCH, ROYAL CROWN, OPP. CLOCK TOWER, ASHOKA ROAD, MYSORE - 570 001, E-MAIL: mysore.bengaluru@bankofindia.co.in PH: 0821-2442833. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. TO QUASH POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 04.12.2024 ANNEXURE- D ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ISSUED UNDER SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE ALL THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT AND WITHOUT Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10617 WP No. 911 of 2025 RESTRUCTURING THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN AS PER THE MANDATE OF THE NOTIFICATION /CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE RBI VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 06/08/2020 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: i. To quash Possession Notice dated 04.12.2024 ANNEXURE - D issued by the respondent issued under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and consequently set aside all the proceedings initiated by the Respondent and without restructuring the repayment of the loan as per the mandate of the Notification / circulars issued by the RBI vide Notification dated 06/08/2020. RBI/2020-21/16 DOR No.BP-BC/3/21.04.048 2020-21. ii. To issue necessary orders / directions to the Respondent not to dispossess the Petitioner from his residential premises under his occupation in the guise of enforcement security. iii. To grant such other relief/s including the cots as this Hon'ble court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Heard Shri R.S. Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri B.S. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10617 WP No. 911 of 2025 3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 30.01.2025 had passed the following order: "Issue notice to the respondent. The petitioner is also permitted to take out hand summons to the respondent. Re-list this matter on 07.02.2025 for Preliminary Hearing. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is permitted to deposit a reasonable amount having regard to the fact that the outstanding amount even as per Annexure ‘A’ is Rs.52,71,708/-." Reasonable amount was directed to be paid. Again on 07.02.2025 passes the following order: "Sri.B.S.Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel undertakes to appear for the respondent-Bank. Office is directed to show the name of the learned counsel in the cause list. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve copies of the writ petition along with annexures on the learned counsel. Re-list this matter on 14.02.2025. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank is directed to secure instructions as to the number of EMIs outstanding, which is payable by the petitioner, and the total sum of the EMIs payable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the directions issued by this Court on 30.01.2025, the petitioner has deposited Rs.60,000/- with the respondent-Bank." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10617 WP No. 911 of 2025 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had then submitted that the petitioner had deposited Rs.60,000/-. 4. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.02.2025, passes the following order: "Learned counsel for the respondent submits on instruction that if the petitioner were to deposit Rs.8,33,700/-, it will regularize the account and therefore, the petitioner will have to pay the EMI regularly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in great difficulty and he will pay Rs.5 lakhs within a period of two weeks from today and he will pay the remaining in the next two weeks. Accordingly, the respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to deposit Rs.5 lakhs with the respondent - Bank. Re-list this matter on 03.03.2025." 5. This Court on 03.03.2025, passes the following order: "This Court on 14.02.2025, had passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the respondent submits on instruction that if the petitioner were to deposit Rs.8,33,700/-, it will regularize the account and therefore, the petitioner will have to pay the EMI regularly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in great difficulty and he will pay Rs.5 lakhs within a period of two weeks from today and he will pay the remaining in the next two weeks. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10617 WP No. 911 of 2025 Accordingly, the respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to deposit Rs.5 lakhs with the respondent - Bank. Re-list this matter on 03.03.2025.” The petitioner projects that certain ailments of his wife to be the impediment to comply with the afore- quoted interim order in its entirety. The order dated 14.02.2025 was itself an extension of what was granted earlier. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant one week’s time to comply with the interim order dated 14.02.2024. List this matter on 10.03.2025, in the fresh matters list. If the interim order is not complied with, in its entirety, the interim order granted on 14.02.2025 stands automatically vacated and the petitioner would be relegated to the Debts Recovery Tribunal." It was made clear that if the interim order is not complied within its entirety, it would stand automatically vacated and the petitioner would be relegated to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Even today, the learned counsel projects the same impediment for payment of any amount beyond Rs.60,000/-. 6. In the light of the aforesaid orders passed by Co-ordinate Bench and this Court, the petition could not deserve any indulgence any further. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10617 WP No. 911 of 2025 7. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petition stands disposed. In the light of the interim order subsisting, I deem it appropriate to extend the same for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 8. In the event, the petitioner would not approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal within four weeks from today, the interim protection granted would automatically get vacated. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT: BHK