- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2059-DB WP No. 1073 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 1073 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M/S. PINAKINI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BEHIND RAYMOND FACTORY, BYPASS ROAD, CHIKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208. REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SMT. ASHA REDDY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALARAM M.L., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SIR. M. VISVESVARAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BRANCH, BANGALORE-560 098. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, AND CHIEF MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LOKESH K.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO EXTEND TIME TO DEPOSIT OF 1ST INSTALLMENT OF RS- 2,00,05,199/- WITHIN 8 WEEKS TO DEPOSIT ON OR BEFORE 20.03.2025 CONSEQUENTLY TO EXTEND THE TIME TO DEPOSIT THE 2ND INSTALLMENT OF RS-2,00,05,199/- ON OR BEFORE 17.04.2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2059-DB WP No. 1073 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) Shorn of bulkiness of paper book, the short grievance made out at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the borrower is against the shortness of the period granted by the DRAT at Chennai for making the pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal in terms of Section 18 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 2. Learned senior panel counsel appearing for the respondent – Bank vehemently opposes the petition contending that what time should be granted for making the pre-deposit as a pre-condition ordinarily pertains to the exclusive domain of the Appellate Authority and therefore the interference of this court is not warranted. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited interference in the matter to the effect that four more weeks be accorded to the petitioner to make the pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal. No prejudice would be caused to the other side by this exercise. If such - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2059-DB WP No. 1073 of 2025 a relief is denied, scrupulous borrowers will be prejudiced and they will go home with a heavy heart. That, a writ court cannot afford to do. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said “Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories…” vide DAVIS v. MILLS1 In the above circumstances, the petition having been partly favoured, the petitioner is granted a period of four weeks for making the pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal in question. Till four weeks expire, no prejudicial order shall be made by the DRAT on the said appeal. On the amount being so deposited, DRAT shall remit it to the bank account of the petitioner without brooking any delay, so that such deposit may enure to the benefit of the borrower. No costs. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RD/Bsv CT:SNN 1 194 U.S. 451