- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19636 WP No. 9890 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 9890 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SUPREME TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, SYED SAIFUDDIN S/O MR. SYED AHMED, R/AT, NO. 1582, SIRAJ COMPOUND, KHINATH COLONY, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGAR-562 160 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER KARNATAKA BANK LTD, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH KARNATAKA BANK BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR, WARD NO. 29, MARALURU EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, TUMAKURU-572 105 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NITHIN CHANDRA M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19636 WP No. 9890 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SALE NOTICE DATED 13/03/205 AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ALSO ISSUED WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSTITUTE A STANDING COMMITTEE TO IDENTIFY AND RESTRUCTURE THE ADVANCE OF MSMEs AS PER THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 29/05/2015 AT ANNEXURE-F AND RBI CIRCULAR DATED 17/03/2016 AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the impugned sale notice dated 13.03.2025 at Annexure-A. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that pursuant to the sale notice, proceedings have not reached logical conclusion and no sale has taken place. 3. The said submission is taken on record. A memo is filed to such effect. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a MSME and certain benefits stand extended - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19636 WP No. 9890 of 2025 by virtue of instructions / directions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and Section 21 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is submitted that such directions and instructions are binding on the banking companies and accordingly, respondent - Bank ought to have taken note of the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Pro Knits vs. Board of Directors of Canara Bank and others - (2024) 10 SCC 292. 5. In light of the stand of the respondent - Bank, question of adjudication doesn't arise. It is made clear that the respondent - Bank, in the event seeks to proceed, is to apply its mind to the contention of the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court and pass necessary orders on the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-C before proceeding further. The authority must examine the consequence of not raising such contention regarding the entity being an MSME at the earliest point of time. All contentions are kept open and the observations - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19636 WP No. 9890 of 2025 made must not be construed as adjudicating any rights or legal position of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP