- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20796 WP No. 16925 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 16925 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. VEDAVATHI BALARAJU, W/O G. BALARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO.7/2, AABHYUDAYA 2ND CROSS, KEMAPIAH BLOCK, LOWER PALACE, ORCHADS, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR I.S, ADVOCATE) AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, BENGALURU NORTH, NO. 1234, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, OPP. CHANDRA LAYOUT BUS STOP, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040. NATURE: BANKING COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.L. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE E- Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20796 WP No. 16925 of 2025 AUCTION BEARING NO. ARB/SINDHU/SN30/01/2024-25 CONDUCTED ON 30.05.2025 AS FAR AS SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND AS FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOT TO CONFIRM THE E-AUCTION DATED 30.05.2025 OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY 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 1. The petitioner has called in question the validity of E-auction conducted on 30.05.2025. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner including the valuation is not made as per procedure prescribed under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 as well as procedure of publication regarding auction notice. Certain other contentions raised as well. 2. Learned counsel Sri P.L. Vijaya Kumar appearing for the respondent - Bank would submit that during the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20796 WP No. 16925 of 2025 pendency of the petition, the e-auction is completed and sale is confirmed. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner is required to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal if at all any legal grievance subsists. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be relegated to avail substantive remedy. Noticing the order of the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110. 5. In light of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, that he intends to avail of substantive remedy, petition is disposed off without adjudicating on merits. 6. All contentions are kept open. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20796 WP No. 16925 of 2025 7. Time spent before this Court may be taken note of in the event, petitioner seeks to invoke substantive remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in an appropriate manner. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK