M/S D K K WIRE CUT BRICKS INDUSTRIES v. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
WP/10064/2025 · 2025-06-09
S Sunil Dutt Yadav
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 21203 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 21203 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19506 WP No. 10064 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 10064 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1.
M/S D K K WIRE CUT BRICKS INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI KARTHIK. D.K., S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA. D AGED 35 YEARS DESHAHALLI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 429 (PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN) … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER STATE, BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955 HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT MUMBAI AND MADDURU REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHETHAN, S/O G MARIYAPPA AGED 39 YEARS.
Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19506 WP No. 10064 of 2025
2.
THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA (CREDIT AND NPA) REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE-03 (40595) MANDYA-571 428
3.
SMT. V.P. SHEELA, W/O D. KRISHNAPPA, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O DESHAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 429.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MS. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-E DATED 17/08/2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MANDYA IN CRL. MISC.
135/2024 AND ANNX-F DATED 21/02/2025 BEARING NO. REF.
LOAN ACCOUNT NO. 38909372692 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER (CREDIT AND N.P.A) REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE - 03(40595) AT MANDYA I.E. THE R2 AND ETC.
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 challenged the order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mandya in Crl.Mis.135/2024 at Annexure-F, which is a notice issued by the Chief Manager, State Bank of
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19506 WP No. 10064 of 2025
India, Mandya, to the petitioner for taking vacant possession of the property.
2. It is seen that the order at Annexure-E is an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFASI Act. In terms of the said order, Court Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the schedule property. The said order was challenged before this court.
3. This court by interim order dated 28.04.2025 has recorded the undertaking of the petitioner to make payment of Rs.4,80,000/-within four weeks and an interim
order of stay of order at Annexure-E and F was passed restraining the respondent-bank from dispossessing the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for respondent-bank submits that the petitioner has not complied with the conditional order.
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19506 WP No. 10064 of 2025
5. It is further submitted that as against the proceedings under Section 14, petitioner has substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
6. It is further submitted that in light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. Stayawati Tondon and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there should be no interference by way of writs where statutory scheme provides for substantive remedy, the present petition is not maintainable.
7. It is noticed that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the assertion that interim
order has not been complied as made by the learned counsel for the respondent also stand uncontroverted.
8. Taking note of the nature of relief sought and the law laid down by the Apex Court in several matters to the effect that statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act is a self-contained code and writs ought not to be entertained
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19506 WP No. 10064 of 2025
as a matter of course, it would be appropriate to dispose off the writ petition keeping open all the contentions of the petitioner to be raised by way of substantive remedy as available under the SARFAESI Act.
9. In light of disposal of the writ petition, it would meet the ends of justice by directing the respondent-bank not to take any precipitative steps for a period of two weeks from today. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE
NP