- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25009 WP No. 6548 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 6548 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SALEEM ENTERPRISES, PROPRIETOR SYED SALEEM PASHA, NO.3052, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGARPET, KOLAR, KARNATAKA - 563 114 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SYED SALEEM PASHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS (SOLE PROPRIETOR IS CONCERN) … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHIES KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/ REGIONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, WARD NO.24, KEELUKOTE EXTENSION, ANTHARGANGANGE MAIN ROAD, KOLAR TOWN, KARNATAKA-563 101 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R IN CP NO.3693/2025) Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25009 WP No. 6548 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE BEARING REFERENCE (INSERT REFERENCE NUMBER IF AVAILABLE) DATED 16.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK (MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM BEARING NO- 447/GVP/SN/485/285/5216 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERN. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the impugned E-auction sale notice dated 16.01.2025 issued by the respondent-Bank and all further proceedings emanating there from. The petitioner has also sought for direction to the respondent-Bank to consider the One Time Settlement proposal submitted by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has further sought for declaration that all proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act without adhering to the mandatory procedures prescribed therein are illegal and void. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25009 WP No. 6548 of 2025 3. It is the case of the petitioner that insofar as defaults in making payment, the same was due to bonafide reasons and in fact the petitioner had also pursued One Time Proposal. It is further submitted that even as regards proceedings of the bank mandatory procedure had not been followed. 4. The petitioner submits that the S.A.No.82/2025 was filed challenging the auction notice and in light of delay in the matter being taken up by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that they have paid substantial amounts and in terms of the accounts of the petitioner, entirety of loan has been cleared. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that in light of the subsequent developments including sale during the pendency of the present proceedings to the auction - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25009 WP No. 6548 of 2025 purchaser who is before the court by filing an impleading application petitioner is making efforts to settle the matter if he were to accept reasonable interest for the amount paid. 7. Learned Counsel for respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner is still due in a sum of Rs.17 Lakhs approximately and once the auction proceedings have reached finality, though petitioner has made substantial payment, legal position does not enable the bank to resile from the action at its instance. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also initiated proceedings in S.A.no.72/2025 which has subsequently been disposed off and accordingly the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18. 9. Learned counsel for the impleading applicant submits that they are not ready for settlement and intend to enforce the rights under the Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25009 WP No. 6548 of 2025 10. After hearing both the sides, contentions raised by the petitioner including procedural violations, payments made and other contentions perhaps were all raised before the DRT in S.A.No.82/2025. The said appeal having been decided, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the DRAT under Section 18. 11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. 12. All contentions raised in the appeal proceedings as against the order under Section 17 before the DRT are kept open to be raised before the DRAT. The time spent before the DRT and this court may be taken note of appropriately for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation to enable the petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. 13. The respondents not to take any further precipitative steps for a period of three weeks from today. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP