- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5159 WP No. 3227 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 3227 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. BHAVANI CONSULTANT AND CONSTRUCTIONS (PROPRIETORY BUSINESS) NO.2, 1 CROSS, OPP. GANESH TEMPLE, HEGGANAHALLI VISHWANEEDAM, BENGALURU - 560 091, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAGHUNATH S, S/O SHYMANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.48, 1ST CROSS, HEGGANHALLI MAIN ROAD, BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE, HEGGANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. SURESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE- ANDHRA BANK) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANGER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER SRI. HAREMAN S/O RAMNATH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RAJAJINAGR BRANCH, NO. 594, 2ND BLOCK, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5159 WP No. 3227 of 2025 2. KANTHAMMA W/O SHYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.48, 1ST CROSS, HEGGANHALLI MAIN ROAD, BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE, HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. MOHAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 28.10.2021 BY VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE IN C MIS NO. 2770/2021 AS PER ANNX-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Sri.M.Mohan Rao, learned counsel submits that he has filed caveat petition on behalf of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the wife of Sri.S.Raghunath, who is the proprietor of the petitioner proprietorship concern. Therefore, notice to respondent No.2 is not necessary. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to deposit 25% of Rs.1,05,00,000/-, which is the outstanding amount. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5159 WP No. 3227 of 2025 However, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the order under Section 14 was passed by the jurisdictional magistrate during October, 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.20/2023. However, the same was dismissed on 18.12.2024 for non-prosecution. It is submitted that respondent No.1 has also filed O.A.No.417/2021 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that there are no bona fides in the writ petition. 3. Having regard to the objections raised by learned counsel for respondent No.1, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition does not deserve to be entertained at this stage. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv CT: BHK