- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17692 WP No. 7324 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7324 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. S. NAGENDRAKUMAR, S/O SACHIDANANDA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SMT MADHU MANJULA G, W/O S NAGENDRAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 46/1 AND 2, SECOND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU -3. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 219, FIRST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, J C NAGAR, III STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560079. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI KANTARAJ T, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MALLESWARAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 102, 7TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560003, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K V LOKESH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED THE IMPUGNED E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE DTD 25.02.2025 AT ANNX-A PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE MORTGAGE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK AND ETC. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17692 WP No. 7324 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS LIST THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER This Court on 20.03.2025 had passed the following order:- "The petitioners are before this Court calling in question a notice of auction, which was slated to be held on 14.03.2025. Shri K.V. Lokesh, learned counsel representing the respondent admits that the auction has already taken place and the auction purchaser has deposited 25% of the sale amount which is Rs.56,10,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that they are ready and willing to save the property by deposit of 30% of the entire dues within 02.04.2025. In the event, the petitioners would not deposit 30% of the total amount in due, the Bank shall proceed with issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. The subject petition is third in line. The very petitioners had approached this Court twice and on both the occasions have faltered in payment. Therefore, both the petitions had been dismissed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17692 WP No. 7324 of 2025 Since the petitioners have now undertaken for the third time that they would pay the amount as aforesaid, indulgence is shown. Therefore, no extension beyond 02.04.2025 could even be considered as a submission from the hands of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In the event, no payment comes about before 02.04.2025, the petition would be dismissed. List this matter on 04.04.2025, in the fresh matters list." and again on 21.04.2025, passed the following order:- "The petitioners are before this Court calling in question a notice of auction, which was slated to be held on 14.03.2025. Shri K.V. Lokesh, learned counsel representing the respondent admits that the auction has already taken place and the auction purchaser has deposited 25% of the sale amount which is Rs.56,10,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that they are ready and willing to save the property by deposit of 30% of the entire dues within 02.04.2025. In the event, the petitioners would not deposit 30% of the total amount in due, the Bank shall proceed with issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. The subject petition is third in line. The very petitioners had approached this Court twice and on both the occasions have faltered in payment. Therefore, both the petitions had been dismissed. Since the petitioners have now undertaken for the third time that they would pay the amount as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17692 WP No. 7324 of 2025 aforesaid, indulgence is shown. Therefore, no extension beyond 02.04.2025 could even be considered as a submission from the hands of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In the event, no payment comes about before 02.04.2025, the petition would be dismissed. List this matter on 04.04.2025, in the fresh matters list." 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that out of Rs.60.00 lakhs that had to be paid only Rs.20.00 lakhs is paid. In the light of the breach of the orders passed by this Court, the petition does not deserve any indulgence. 3. Petition is disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as is available in law. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21